+++JORDAN TIMES 28-29April ’06:“Egypt judges lock horns with regime”QUOTES FROM TEXT: “confrontation between … the Egyptian government and reformist judges who openly called for a change of regime” “the judges have become a symbol for the drive for reform in Egypt”

“thousands of police deployed” … “a return to the policies of oppression”——————————————————————————————————————EXCERPTS:CAIRO (AFP): The confrontation stepped up a notch 27 April between the Egyptian government and reformist judges, who openly called for a change of regime and saw their supporters arrested and beaten by police.After the hearing of two judges who had accused the judiciary of helping to rig elections … their syndicate …vowed to keep up the pressure on President Hosni Mubarak.… the judges called for “democracy through free elections which allow a real change of regime.”They also called for “the abolition of all exception laws, including the state of emergency, and for the freedom to form political parties without any restrictions.”…f the judges…have become a symbol of the drive for reform in Egypt and had already been waging an aggressive campaign to demand more independence from the executive.Thousands of police had been deployed across Cairo 27 Aprilahead of the hearing by a disciplinary board against Mahmoud Mekki and Hisham Al Bastawissi, two of the most outspoken reformists in the judges’ syndicate.A group of a few hundred activists camped outside the court to support the two judges were assaulted by police. Some of them were beaten with sticks and an undetermined number arrested.“Judges are our voice against dictatorship,” …. ….Activists were snatched off the street by police even before they reached the block which houses a number of courts and the syndicates for the country’s journalists, judges and lawyers, witnesses told AFP.. . . Only two years ago, street protests in Cairo were almost unimaginable, but Mubarak had loosened his iron grip on the state amid pressure from Washington to allow greater political freedom in Egypt.Judges, intellectuals, rights groups and protestors argued Thursday that the regime was reverting to its strong-arm tactics to muzzle dissident voices.“If the demands of the judges were justified and didn’t reflect those of the nation, they wouldn’t have worried the government so much and such a police blockade would not have been imposed around the judges’ meeting, as if they were terrorists,” Alexandria judge Ashraf Al Barudi told AFP.“This display of force is a return to the policies of oppression and a police state,” said political commentator Mohammad Sayed Said, who was among a group of intellectuals supporting the judges … .“But all this will not succeed in reimposing a culture of fear. The people have already defeated it and they are ready to pay with their blood for democratic change,” he told AFP.The opposition Muslim Brotherhood,…. said 21 of its members were detained at Alexandria station as they prepared to go to Cairo to support the judges. . . .

QUOTE FROM TEXT: “When a population is ruled by force instead of reason and consensus, its keepers have cause to grow uneasy”———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————EXCERPTS:…Egypt’s 25-year-old Emergency Law … would be extended two years and then replaced by a package of anti-terrorism laws. Two years in Egyptian time translates roughly into never, and the promised legislation, it is feared, will only make permanent what was previously considered temporary. “The president is stalling,” says Hisham Qassem, publisher of the independent daily Masri al-Yom. “There is no real commitment to political reform.”The Emergency Law forbids public assembly, curtails media freedom and enables arbitrary detentions that are often prolonged and harsh. .. .Echoing popular wisdom, Kefaya activist George Ishaq says, “The Emergency Law is not [to protect] the people, but the regime.” …anti terrorism legislation …”a new look for an old law.”… The suspension of due process has eroded the fabric of society and the civil rights on which it is based…. criticism of the Emergency Law …roused Mubarak to declare that “Only Islamists demand abolishment of this law. But I will never let chaos prevail!” … Thanks to the Emergency Law, the actual number of Egyptians held without legal counsel for indefinite periods … is estimated in the tens of thousands; … .…Given the recent extension and the gist of the proposed replacement laws, the trend is toward greater state control. This defensive style of government has affected people’s ability to act in incalculable ways, and mistrust between government and the people is so rife, it’s hard to say who doubts the other more. The real problem, however, comes… when fear and conformism replace self-confidence and debate. “Breaking the culture of fear,” says Ishaq, is a Kefaya priority.One of the first words you learn in Cairo is mamnu, or “forbidden.” … .The air of restrictiveness is enhanced by religious rulings … Not everyone takes the fatwas seriously, but between political and religious injunctions, average Egyptian must wonder if anything worth doing is actually allowed.. . .Last year, an (Mubarak’s)NDP spokesman said that Egypt’s anti-terrorism laws would be “Western style,” … This was probably meant as reassurance that the laws would be fair and democratic. … Egypt … remains caught up in a vicious cycle. When a population is ruled by force instead of reason and consensus, its keepers have cause to grow uneasy and, therefore, an excuse to act more oppressively still.

Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Israelis (including Arab Israelis) carried out by Dahaf for Yediot Ahronot the week of 28 April 2006 (as Olmert coalition government still in formation).

Are you satisfied with the makeup that is developing for the government?Yes 39% No 55%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Ehud Olmert during the process of the formation of the government?Yes 37% No 51%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Amir Peretz during the process of the formation of the government?Yes 30% No 63%

Is the good of the State one of the considerations of the people handling the [coalition] negotiations?Considerably yes 28% A little or not at all 69%

Is the appointment of Amir Peretz as minister of defense a correct move?Yes 21% No 76%

Are you worried about the appointment of Amir Peretz as defense minister?Yes 56% No 44%

How do you feel today about how you voted in the elections?Satisfied 85% No satisfied 14%

Is it proper for the government to include 27 ministers?Yes 20% No 76%

The nature of the war being waged against Israel changed, perhaps irreversibly, this week. Processes that have been developing for more than four years came together this week and brought us to a very different military-political reality than that which we have known until now.

The face of the enemy has changed. If in the past it was possible to say that the war being waged against Israel was unique and distinct from the global jihad, after the events of the past week, it is no longer possible to credibly make such a claim. Four events that occurred this week – the attacks in the Sinai; the release of Osama bin Laden’s audiotape; the release of Abu Musab Zarqawi’s videotape; and the arrest of Hamas terrorists by Jordan – all proved clearly that today it is impossible to separate the wars. The new situation has critical consequences for the character of the campaign that the IDF must fight to defend Israel and for the nature of the policies that the incoming government of Israel must adopt and advance.

The two attacks in the Sinai were noteworthy for several reasons. First, they were very different from one another. The first, which targeted tourists in Dahab, was the familiar attack against a soft target that we have become used to seeing in the Sinai over the past year and a half. The attack against the Multinational Force Observers was more unique since it only has one past precedent.

In an article published last October in the journal MERIA, Reuven Paz explained that the al-Qaida strategist Abu Musab al-Suri supported the first type of attack. His follower, Abu Muhammad Hilali, wrote last September that in waging the jihad against the Egyptian regime there is no point in attacking foreign forces or Egyptian forces because such attacks will lead nowhere. He encouraged terrorists to attack soft targets like tourists and foreign non-governmental organizations on the one hand, and strategic targets like the Egyptian gas pipeline to Israel on the other. In both cases, such attacks would achieve political objectives. Opposing Hilali’s view is Zarqawi’s strategy. As one would expect from al-Qaida’s commander in Iraq, Zarqawi upholds attacks on foreign forces.

The foregoing analysis is not proof that two separate branches of al-Qaida conducted the attacks. But the combination of approaches this week does lend credence to the assessment that al-Qaida is now paying a great deal of attention to Israel’s neighborhood. And this is a highly significant development.

Until recently, Israel, like Jordan and Egypt, did not particularly interest al-Qaida. When bin Laden’s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and his military commander Saif al-Adel merged their terror organization, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, with al-Qaida, they adopted bin Laden’s approach which dictated suspending their previous war to overthrow the Egyptian regime and concentrating on attacking America and its allies. In the same manner, when the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi joined al-Qaida, he was compelled to put his wish to overthrow the Hashemite regime to the side. Israel was not on the agenda.

But today everything has changed. Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, is under the gun. Bin Laden himself made this clear in his tape this week. By placing Hamas under his protection, bin Laden made three moves at once. First, he announced that the Palestinians are no longer independent actors. Second, he defined the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority as a part of the liberated Islamic lands where al-Qaida can feel at home. Third, he hitched a ride on the Palestinian issue, which is more popular in the Islamic world than the Iraq war, where al-Qaida is apparently on the road to defeat.

For his part, Zarqawi already announced his plan to go back to his old war and work to topple the Hashemites (and destroy Israel) last November, after he commanded the Amman hotel suicide bombings. Back then Zarqawi announced that Jordan was but a stop on the road to the conquest of Jerusalem.

In his video this week, Zarqawi emphasized that the destruction of Israel through the conquest of Jerusalem is one of his major goals. Both he and bin Laden made clear that from their perspectives, the war against the US and the war against Israel are the same war.

On the level of strategic theory, bin Laden and Zarqawi both expressed al-Qaida’s long-term strategy that Zawahiri laid out last year to Jordanian journalist Fuad Hussein. Zawahiri explained then that there are seven stages to the jihad before the establishment of the global caliphate. According to Zawahiri, the global jihad began in 2000 and will end in 2020. Today we are in the third stage, which includes the toppling of the regimes in Jordan, Syria and Egypt and the targeting of Israel for destruction.

While al-Qaida today is setting its sights on Israel and its neighbors, the arrests of Hamas terrorists this week in Jordan show that for their part, the Palestinians are working to advance the global jihad. The Hamas attempt to carry out attacks in Jordan points to a change in Hamas’s self-perception. They have gone from being local terrorists to being members of the Islamist axis, which is led by Iran and includes Syria, al-Qaida and Hizbullah.

A week after Zarqawi carried out the attacks in Amman last November, Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki met with the heads of Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP and DFLP-GC in Beirut. At the end of the summit, Ahmed Jibril declared, “We all confirmed that what is going on in occupied Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.”

A week later, Hizbullah launched its largest Katyusha rocket attack on northern Israel since the IDF withdrew from south Lebanon in May 2000. Two weeks later, Islamic Jihad carried out the suicide bombing outside the shopping mall in Netanya. Shortly thereafter, Zarqawi’s al-Qaida operatives launched another barrage of Katyushas on northern Israel from Lebanon.Similarly, on January 19, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted a terror summit in Damascus attended by the same cast of characters. The same day, Islamic Jihad carried out a suicide bombing in the old bus station in Tel Aviv. And on April 18, the day before last week’s suicide bombing in the old bus station in Tel Aviv, Ahmadinejad presided over yet another terror summit in Teheran with the same participants. And, again, shortly after the summit, al-Qaida struck in the Sinai.

Zawahiri’s seven stages of jihad go hand in hand with a 60-page text written by Saif al-Adel sometime after the US invasion of Iraq. Adel deposited his manuscript with the same Jordanian journalist last year. Adel, who has been operating from Iran since the battle of Tora Bora in November 2001, is reportedly Zarqawi’s commander in Iraq and al-Qaida’s senior liaison with the Iranian regime.

In his manuscript he laid out al-Qaida’s intentions for the third stage of the jihad. He explained that the organization needed new bases and was looking for a failed state or states to settle in. Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon and Gaza were all identified as possible options.

As the American author and al-Qaida investigator Richard Miniter puts it, “US forces together with the Kenyans and the Ethiopians have pretty much prevented al-Qaida from basing in Somalia or Darfur. That left only Lebanon with all its problems with its various political factions, overlords and the UN. But then suddenly, like manna from Heaven, Israel simply gave them the greatest gift al-Qaida ever received when Ariel Sharon decided to give them Gaza.”

Israel, he explains, provided al-Qaida with the best base it has ever had. Not only is Gaza located in a strategically vital area – between the sea, Egypt and Israel. It is also fairly immune from attack since the Kadima government will be unwilling to reconquer the area.

Moreover, as was the case with Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Gamaa Islamiyya terrorists who merged with al-Qaida in the 1990s, the Palestinians today constitute an ideal population for al-Qaida. They already support jihad. They have vast experience in fighting. And if it only took Hamas two weeks in office to get all the other terror groups – from Fatah to the Popular Resistance Committees to the Popular Front – to pledge allegiance to it last week, Hamas’s co-optation by al-Qaida shouldn’t be very difficult.

Al-Qaida today is building its presence in Gaza, Judea and Samaria gradually. It drafts Palestinian terrorists to its ranks and provides them with ideological indoctrination and military training. In November, for instance, a terror recruiter in Jordan who had drafted two terrorists from the Nablus area to al-Qaida’s ranks and instructed them to recruit others, informed them that he intended to send a military trainer from Gaza to train them. The two, who were arrested in December, had planned to carry out a double suicide bombing in Jerusalem.

Last May, the first terror cell in Gaza announced its association with al-Qaida. When Ra’anan Gissin, then prime minister Ariel Sharon’s spokesman, was asked to comment on the development by a foreign reporter, he presented the government’s position on the issue as follows: “There is some evidence of links between militants in Gaza and al-Qaida. but for us, local terrorist groups are just as dangerous.”

On the face of it, Gissin’s arrogance seems appropriate. After all, what do we care who sends the bombers into our cafes and buses? But things don’t work that way.

As the attacks in Egypt, the arrests in Jordan and the bin Laden and Zarqawi messages this week all indicated, we find ourselves today in a world war. The Palestinians are no longer the ones waging the war against us. The Islamist axis now wages the war against us through the Palestinians. The center of gravity, like the campaign rationale of the enemy, has moved away. Today, the decision-makers who determine the character and timing of the terror offensives are not sitting in Gaza and or Judea and Samaria. They are sitting in Teheran, Waziristan, Damascus, Beirut, Amman and Fallujah. The considerations that guide those that order the trigger pulled are not local considerations, but regional considerations at best and considerations wholly cut off from local events at worst.

This new state of affairs demands a change in the way all of Israel’s security arms understand and fight this war. The entire process of intelligence gathering for the purpose of uncovering and preventing planned terror attacks needs to be reconsidered.

A reconfiguration of political and diplomatic strategies is also required. Talk of a separation barrier and final borders, not to mention the abandonment of Judea and Samaria to Hamas sound hallucinatory when standing against us are Zarqawi who specializes in chemical and biological warfare; bin Laden who specializes in blowing up airplanes; and Iran that threatens a nuclear Holocaust.

Who can cause Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz, Tzipi Livni and Yuli Tamir to take the steps required to protect Israel from the reality exposed by the events of this past week?

On April 22, two days after a reportedly unproductive meeting with President George W. Bush in Washington, President Hu Jintao of China will arrive in Saudi Arabia. Relations between the two countries are an increasingly important part of world diplomacy. In energy, China is the leading customer of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter. On the military front, the kingdom bought now-obsolete ballistic missiles with a 1,500-mile range from China in the 1980s; the Saudis are reportedly interested in replacing them with more modern Chinese-designed missiles, perhaps with Pakistani nuclear warheads.

Unlike his American visit, Hu’s trip to the kingdom will unambiguously be given the status of a state visit. It is especially significant because King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia visited China as recently as January this year, the first visit by a Saudi monarch since diplomatic relations were established in 1990 and Abdullah’s first trip outside the Middle East since becoming monarch last August. During the January meeting, five agreements covering economic cooperation trade and double taxation as well as an energy pact were signed. Energy is expected to be central to the latest talks, though a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman noted it was “not the only domain” of cooperation.

Surging Oil Demand

Chinese oil demand has been rising at an astonishing rate-year-on-year increases have recently averaged more than one million barrels per day, about 40 percent of the world’s increased demand-and has been a major influence on the record high international prices for oil. Although an important producer in its own right, China has been a net importer of petroleum since 1996. In 2004, it overtook Japan to become the world’s second largest consumer of oil after the United States.

Analysts predict that China’s share of world oil consumption could double to 14 percent over the next decade. (Currently, the United States consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil production.) Small wonder that Saudi Arabia, as the world’s largest oil exporter, wants to nurture China as a customer, especially because Asian markets are closer to the Persian Gulf than are Europe or the United States. Saudi Arabia currently supplies China with about 450,000 barrels per day.

Washington has watched the trend of Chinese oil demand with growing concern. Besides seeking to strengthen links with Saudi Arabia, Chinese companies have acquired oil concessions in Canada, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Sudan, Indonesia, Iraq, and Iran. Last year, an attempt to buy the American oil company Unocal, which has exploration rights overseas, was blocked by congressional opposition. (The company was bought by Chevron for $17.3 billion even though the China National Offshore Oil Corporation had offered at least $1 billion more.) Chinese energy interests in Sudan and Iran are assumed to be factors in Beijing’s refusal to vote in the UN Security Council for sanctions over Sudan’s actions in Darfur and against the Iranian nuclear program.

Schadenfreude?

Washington can derive some comfort from apparent hiccups in Chinese-Saudi relationship. No energy deals were signed during King Abdullah’s January visit to China. Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that agreements on projects would have to be signed by the two countries’ oil companies. Industry experts say that differences on shouldering the financial risk are complicating the joint venture modernization of a refinery in Quanzhou, which is being expanded to a capacity of 240,000 barrels per day, and a proposed 200,000 barrels per day refinery at Qingdao. In China, retail prices for petroleum products are tightly regulated by the government; Beijing reportedly does not want to share the financial risk with the Saudi side. Additionally, the Saudis were apparently upset in January that King Abdullah was welcomed by the Chinese foreign minister rather than President Hu himself. It will be interesting to note whether King Abdullah is at the airport on April 22 when Hu arrives.

Nuclear Worries

A major concern for Washington is that Riyadh is thought to be considering creating a deterrent against Iran by acquiring from Pakistan both Chinese-designed missiles and dual-key Pakistani nuclear warheads. Under such a dual-key system, Pakistanis would have the key that controls the warheads while Saudis would have the key that controls the missiles on which the warheads sit. Such a stratagem, used by the United States and Germany during the Cold War, does not breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and perhaps evades Chinese international obligations against the transfer of ballistic missiles, but would seriously undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts to block Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program. Saudi Arabia’s current arsenal of Chinese CSS-2 missiles, capable of reaching both Tel Aviv and Tehran, were originally designed to carry nuclear warheads, but Riyadh maintains they carry only high explosive. King Abdullah visited Pakistan in February, on his way back from China. And Crown Prince Sultan, Abdullah’s heir apparent as well as Saudi defense minister, was in Pakistan earlier in April. On Sultan’s previous visit in 1999, he went to Pakistan’s controversial and unsafeguarded Kahuta uranium enrichment and missile production center, where he was shown round by the then director, the now disgraced nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan. That excursion by Sultan prompted a formal U.S. diplomatic protest to Riyadh.

Reports from the Bush-Hu meeting suggest that China has a firm view of its own interests and, despite appreciating that its relationship with Washington is very important, Beijing has little willingness to compromise even at the cost of allowing problems to mount. Since 2001, Saudi Arabia’s determination to see its national security interests more independently of the United States has also become clear. For months, Riyadh has been signaling its disagreements with Washington over policy in Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority. It could well judge that the likely American wrath resulting from acquiring nuclear-armed missiles with the connivance of China and Pakistan is bearable.

U.S. Policy

Apart from continuing to remind Riyadh and Beijing of the need to maintain a common international front against the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, Washington’s diplomatic options appear to be few. Despite differences on commercial details (and irritating Saudi support for China’s Muslim minority), Beijing and Riyadh seem determined to develop a close political relationship. Competition for oil supplies between the United States and China seems set to rise, a concern that should give impetus to President Bush’s aim, announced in his 2006 State of the Union address, to halt the country’s “addiction” to oil. The lack of progress in the Bush-Hu talks suggests a lack of diplomatic preparation. The flurry of recent Saudi-Chinese and Saudi-Pakistani meetings could mean that deals to America’s detriment are close to being finalized.====Simon Henderson is the London-based Baker senior fellow of the Washington Institute and author, with Patrick Clawson, of the 2005 Policy Focus Reducing Vulnerability to Middle East Energy Shocks: A Key Element in Strengthening U.S. Energy Security.

——————————

From: imra@netvision.net.ilTo: imra@imra.org.ilSubject: Poll puzzle: Why are 85% satisfied how they voted when 51% Not pleased Olmert 76% wrong for Peretz to be DM?

Poll puzzle: Why are 85% satisfied how they voted when 51% Not pleased Olmert 76% wrong for Peretz to be DM?Dr. Aaron Lerner Date:29 April 2006

The Dahaf poll represented below found that while 85% of respondents were satisfied with how they voted yet were considerably less happy about how things are being handled.

A few observations are in order:

1. 85% are “satisfied” how they voted – but only 63% of qualified voters actually voted. Even if one takes into account the high estimate that 10% of the people listed as qualified voters actually live overseas, that comes to 70% of qualified voters residing in Israel voted. So we have a results that 15% of the people who are satisfied how they voted are actually satisfied that they didn’t vote.

2. Of the 3,186,738 who did vote, 690,901 voted for Kadima (15.2%)

Are the 85% “satisfied” that they voted, did not vote, voted for Kadima or voted against Kadima or what?

Or, alternatively, how many of those same 85% of the people who said that they were satisfied how they voted and voted for Kadima and Labor (combined total 25.6%) or for other parties aren’t actually jumping with joy about what they did but, as a matter of pride, won’t admit to a pollster that they are starting to regret how they voted?

Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Israelis (includingArab Israelis) carried out by Dahaf for Yediot Ahronot the week of 28 April2006 (as Olmert coalition government still in formation).

Are you satisfied with the makeup that is developing for the government?Yes 39% No 55%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Ehud Olmert during the process ofthe formation of the government?Yes 37% No 51%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Amir Peretz during the process ofthe formation of the government?Yes 30% No 63%

Is the good of the State one of the considerations of the people handlingthe [coalition] negotiations?Considerably yes 28% A little or not at all 69%

Is the appointment of Amir Peretz as minister of defense a correct move?Yes 21% No 76%

Are you worried about the appointment of Amir Peretz as defense minister?Yes 56% No 44%

How do you feel today about how you voted in the elections?Satisfied 85% No satisfied 14%

Is it proper for the government to include 27 ministers?Yes 20% No 76%

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 29 April ’06:”Editorial: Funding for Palestine”QUOTES FROM TEXT: “funds …sent have amounted to almost nothing” “Arabs and Muslim governments …insufficient giving” “World Bank to take over for paying Palestinian saleries is a dimunition of Palestinian sovreignty”

A couple of months ago … Hamas boldly predicted that it would find the money elsewhere. … whatever funds may have been sent have amounted to almost nothing. The Palestinian state is now in precisely the crisis that President Mahmoud Abbas predicted. Some 165,000 Palestinian government-employees have not been paid salaries for weeks and have to beg and borrow to survive.the Palestinian Authority is the largest employer in the West Bank and Gaza – cannot pay their bills …The economy is in dire straits.Doubtless there will be many Arabs, Muslims and friends of the Palestinians incandescent with rage at the notion that the Americans and Europeans should be able to “blackmail” the Hamas government. But far more appalling is that the Palestinian Authority should have become so totally dependent on Western aid. …The lesson that the Palestinians need to take from this disaster is …They cannot allow themselves to ever again slide into a state of neocolonial economic dependency on the US and EU. It is bad politics and it is bad economics. …Arabs and Muslim governments are also complicit in this disaster. Their insufficient giving is what has forced the Palestinians into near absolute dependence on Western aid. Moral support is all very well, but it does not pay salaries or feed mouths.….The French president’s proposal for the World Bank to take over responsibility for paying Palestinian salaries is a diminution of Palestinian sovereignty … .The onus is on Arab and Muslim governments. …. Palestinians… will not easily forgive a lack of Arab and Muslim action at this desperate time.

QUOTE FROM TEXT: “For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema”

” The same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups”

“The West has placed its hopes on maturation of radical Islamic groups … there is little evidence to support this hope.”—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

EXCERPTS:

It’s a truism that all conflicts end eventually. But how do you resolve a confrontation with an adversary that appears unable or unwilling to negotiate a settlement? That’s a common problem that runs through the West’s battles with militant Islam.The most pressing instance is Iran’s drive to become a nuclear power. … it wasn’t really a negotiation at all. “The EU talked, and the Iranians responded, but they never came back with counterproposals because they could not agree on anything.”French analysts believe the Iranians displayed a similar refusal to negotiate during their long and bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. The exhausted Iraqis made efforts to seek a negotiated peace, but the Iranians rejected their feelers. …t there was never a formal peace treaty and the Iranians dragged their feet even on the exchange of prisoners.The latest example of Iran’s diplo-phobia was a statement this week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissing the U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq … .… For a theocratic regime that claims a mandate from God, the very idea of compromise is anathema. Great issues of war and peace will be resolved by God’s will, not by human negotiators. Better to lose than to bargain with the devil. Better to suffer physical hardship than humiliation.This same blockage is evident in other conflicts with Muslim groups. Al- Qaeda doesn’t seek negotiations or a political settlement, nor should the West imagine it could reach one with a group that demands that America and its allies withdraw altogether from the Muslim world. The closest Osama bin Laden has come to a political demarche was his January 19, 2006, offer of “a long-term truce based on fair conditions,” which weren’t specified. His deeper message was that Al-Qaeda would wait it out – waging a long war of attrition … adversaries would eventually grow tired and capitulate. … .The West has placed its hopes on political maturation of radical Muslim groups, figuring that as they assume responsibility, they will grow accustomed to the compromises that are essential to political life. But so far, there is little evidence to support this hope. The Hamas government appears to have nothing it wants to negotiate with Israel. Indeed, it still refuses to recognize formally the existence of its adversary. In Lebanon, Hizbullah has agreed to little compromises since it joined the Lebanese government, but not big ones.A word that recurs in radical Muslim proclamations is “dignity” … unyielding Yasser Arafat remained popular among Palestinians, despite his failure to deliver concrete benefits. He was a symbol of pride and resistance. Hamas, too, gains support because of its rigid steadfastness,The Muslim demand for respect isn’t something that can be negotiated … .

Representatives of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) visited Israel today (Thursday, April 27, 2006) and discussed issues of nuclear export controls, a continuation to a previous meeting that took place on March 15, 2005.

The NSG delegation was headed by its chairman, Ambassador Roald Naess of Norway.

The NSG representatives met with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and ministry officials, and also held discussions with officials of the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission.

The Israeli officials presented the country’s policy and activities related to nuclear non-proliferation and export controls, while the NSG representatives briefed them on NSG decisions, current activities, and discussions. Ideas on ways to enhance the ongoing dialogue between Israel and the NSG were also discussed.

Minister Livni told the delegation that Israel shares the objectives and priorities of the NSG and is a reliable partner in confronting nuclear proliferation. She expressed the hope that the dialogue would soon be translated into a stronger partnership that facilitates these common efforts.

On February 14, 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman al-Saud on board the USS Quincy, anchored in the Great Bitter Lake along the Suez Canal in Egypt. The summit cemented a lengthy and, in recent years, often fractious relationship. Over the subsequent six decades, U.S.-Saudi relations have been multifaceted and complex, and often tense. In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks and the revelations that fifteen out of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals, both Washington’s ties with Riyadh and the kingdom’s support for radical Islam have come under increased scrutiny. On December 1, 2005, Patrick Clawson, senior editor at the Middle East Quarterly and deputy director for research at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, convened a roundtable to discuss the current state of U.S.-Saudi relations. Joining him were Thomas Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute; Ali Alyami, founder of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia; Simon Henderson, a Washington Institute senior fellow and London-based specialist in Saudi politics; and Amr Hamzawy, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Are U.S.-Saudi Relations Solid?

Middle East Quarterly: How solid is the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and what interests do the two countries have in common?

Thomas Lippman: The relationship is solid in a bilateral sense in which you have two governments that have found various issues on which they can work together and come to an agreement. It is not and should not be the kind of relationship that we have had in the past in Saudi Arabia, one essentially of the U.S. as tutor and Saudi Arabia as student. Saudi Arabia is a more mature country now. The damage that was done by 9-11 has largely been repaired in the government-to-government relationship; the relationship between the American people and the Saudi people has suffered what may be permanent damage.

Ali Alyami: The Saudi and U.S. relationship has not been a solid relationship. It has been premised on an artificial basis, not on shared values. It’s a relationship based on a family that represents the government, a government that represses democratic society. The relationship has been based on the wrong issues. The Saudi government-or should I say the ruling family-today, more than at any time in the past, represents perhaps the single biggest danger in the Middle East.

MEQ: Does the U.S. government share your viewpoint?

Alyami: Some in it agree with me; others express the same views as does Tom Lippman.

Simon Henderson: It’s a strong relationship but it has suffered because of 9-11. To an extent, it’s been repaired since then, but it has changed. Before 9-11, it was based on a strategic security relationship with a great understanding that this was mutually beneficial to both sides. It’s still based on oil in the past four years, but the military security relationship has declined, as has the sense of a mutual understanding.

Amr Hamzawy: I basically agree with Simon Henderson but would add that there are areas of convergence and divergence in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. This became clearer after 9-11. What we are really seeing now in Saudi-U.S. relations is the crystallization of some areas where interests and perceptions intersect and others where they do not. The Israeli-Palestinian issue and oil are clear cases of convergence. Perceptions, interests, rhetoric, political reform-even the framework of political reform as understood in Washington as compared to Riyadh-are clear areas of divergence. Despite these areas of divergence, the relationship remains very pragmatic. It will hardly lead to open conflict. So, tensions exist but not conflicts.

MEQ: Several people identified 9-11 as extremely important in shaping the relationship. How effectively do you think the Saudi government is countering those in the kingdom who would finance such Islamist terrorism overseas?

Lippman: There is no doubt that King Abdullah and his closest advisers realize that Islamist or jihadist violence is inimical to their interests. This is affirmed by the appointment of Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the most outspoken proponent of all-out war against the violent extremists, to direct the National Security Council. Commitment to eradicating extremism is not the same as being fully effective, though, either at home or internationally. There is still much work to be done. Senior Bush administration officials have repeatedly testified before Congress on how the Saudis can be more effective on issues such as control of finance.

Henderson: But the Saudi government is more than King Abdullah and his closest advisors. While the king brought his closest advisors with him when he formally assumed the throne in August 2005, he shares leadership with other senior princes. There is no consensus on who is in this most influential group, but certainly Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz are among them. Other senior royal family members also have influence. Just as Abdullah never had full authority while still crown prince and acting head of state, he has not consolidated full control today. When talking about Saudi Arabia, deciding who controls the levers of power is always a problem.

Alyami: Too many Western officials and commentators say that the Saudi government is an ally in the fight against terrorism. Do not forget that the Saudi regime and the terrorists share many goals. In Iraq, neither the Saudi government nor Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi want democracy. They jointly fear Iranian influence. They oppose stability in Iraq. Riyadh does not want a thriving, oil-producing Iraq on its border. Tom Lippman said that the Saudi government is fighting terrorism; yes, it fights terrorism inside its borders because domestic terrorism threatens the royal family. But outside the kingdom is another matter.

MEQ: What are the Saudi government’s attitudes towards those in Saudi Arabia who fund Islamist terrorists groups such as those that struck at the World Trade Center and the London transportation system?

Alyami: The Saudi government attitude is permissive to the people and institutions such as Muslim youth organizations that supported these terrorists. Since the dynasty’s founding in 1744, Wahhabi extremists have supported the Saud family. The Saudi royal family has no legitimacy beyond the support of these extremists. The Saudi royal family is neither democratic nor interested in sharing power. Terrorism can threaten the House of Saud, but it can also serve its interests. I am from Saudi Arabia, and I know the system. I am a victim of this brutal system. If there is not complete transformation of Saudi Arabia-not only politics but also culture, religion, and education-then Islamic extremists will bring the United States down. I agree with President Bush: we must confront the ideology. The Saudis will indeed fight the terrorism inside Saudi Arabia but, I repeat, outside Saudi Arabia is another story.

Henderson: The Saudis have become more effective in countering those inside the kingdom who finance Islamist terrorism abroad. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser testified to this issue in November 2005.[1] Despite the improved cooperation, he did imply there was much more that the Saudis could do.

Who Controls Saudi Arabia?

Hamzawy: I agree with part of what Ali Alyami said. The Saudi establishment considers the Islamist splinter groups, which are scattered across Saudi Arabia, to be a security threat. They are beginning to see Islamism as a political threat as well. The need to combat terrorism has motivated all recent reform, including holding municipal elections.

I disagree with Ali that the Saudi establishment wishes to radicalize the region. Instability in Iraq undermines Saudi national interests. The Saudi royal family knows that it is hard to control radicalization once it takes root. The 1990s’ radicalism in Algeria and Egypt that swept the region scared the family.

How effective has the Saudi government been in tackling Islamism at home? Two of its strategies are effective and one less so. Prince Naif has implemented a strategy of securitization. I went to Saudi Arabia in June 2005 and found the number of policemen on the street striking. A militarization of daily life has taken place, and it is proving to be an effective strategy. Over the past two years, Saudi security services have caught and arrested terrorists.

The Saudi establishment has also been effective at outreach to the outer edges of the Islamist spectrum. They have won back, not members of splinter groups, but some of their sympathizers. They have regained control over some segments of the Islamist spectrum.

Less effective has been the Saudi royal family’s efforts to use religious discourse to combat radical Islamists. The Saudi royal family has not won the cooperation of the Wahhabi establishment. A core group of the Wahhabi establishment may be receptive to the royal family’s message, but the broad base of the religious establishment is ambivalent when it comes to combating the discourse of Islamism in public.

Alyami: It is important to judge people by what they do as opposed to what they say. The Saudi royal family, especially Prince Naif, worked hard to dismiss a reformist minister of education and to replace him with Abdullah bin Salih Obeid, the former head of the World Muslim League.[2] Obeid is among the most hard-line Wahhabis in the country. And he runs the education system in Saudi Arabia today! How can they be confronting these extremists when they place one of the most reactionary men in charge of educational reform?

Given a choice between religious extremists and reformers, the Saudi royal family will imprison the reformers and give amnesty to the extremists. Abdullah has done this three times in the last two years. He put Matruk al-Faleh, Turki al-Hammad, Ali al-Domani, and hundreds of other reformers in prison, stopped them from leaving the country, or cut off their media access. The government, then, gave amnesty to people incarcerated for inciting murder or conspiracy to murder. Anybody who says the Saudi royal family is stupid is himself stupid. The Saudi leaders are clever; they are desert foxes. What they do and what they say are very different things.

Lippman: To some extent I agree. It is always possible to pick out issues such as the appointment of Obeid as minister of education. From the time of King Faisal, who ruled from 1964 to 1975, it has always been three steps forward and 2.8 or 3.2 steps back. A statesman like Ghazi al-Gosaibi serves as minister of labor, and every day he kicks open doors for women and others who were previously disenfranchised from working. Saudi Arabia is not a static society. Domestic tendencies and trends are felt in different ways. While there is no system in place for such trends to be reflected in the ballot box, society is changing in other ways. There are too many educated women coming into the work force and into society now for it to remain static. Saudi Arabia now is certainly different from what it was when I first visited it thirty years ago.

Henderson: Surely, Tom, we cannot confuse openings for women and the appointment of a certifiable Wahhabi education minister three years after 9-11. Especially when almost all analysts and officials agree that the obscurantist nature of the Saudi education system contributed to the attacks.

Lippman: You are absolutely correct about the negative impact of the education appointment, especially since the ministry now controls both girls’ and boys’ education.

Hamzawy: Simon Henderson is correct that there are different trends within the royal family. The religious establishment is a key player and is wealthy. It cannot be controlled, even by the royal family. The religious establishment controls three vital spheres of Saudi society: education, preaching, and the judiciary. It is not a monolith, though. Within the religious establishment, there are different tendencies. A core group is receptive to the wishes of the king. Another group has been less receptive. This group was associated throughout the 1980s and 1990s with the so-called Sahwa Islamiya (Islamic Awakening), which still adheres to an Islamist discourse, even if they were less militant than Al-Qaeda.

There are two general groups of reformers on the Saudi scene, and both are relatively small. The first are the so-called liberals such as Matruk al-Faleh, Ali al-Domani, as well as some university professors, and civil society, human rights, and women activists. The second are the liberal or moderate Islamists. Again, these groups are not monolithic. There are degrees of convergence and divergence within the reform camp.

Another force is small but a threat to national security: the splinter groups of Islamists operating across the kingdom.

The power balance among these groups is the best way to gauge how effective the government is in terms of ideology and reform.

MEQ: How does this play out with regard to education?

Hamzawy: While Wahhabism is the defining reality of Saudi Arabia, it is important to look for gray zones. The question is whether there are moderate trends within the Wahhabi establishment and whether these can lead to reform. There is not always forward progress.

There has been less moderation in the last year. Between 2001 and 2003, there was greater moderation within the educational system and universities. There were fewer attempts to ban professors and fewer restrictions than there are now. In the last year, and especially the last few months, there has been a shift back to less moderation.

MEQ: Why?

Hamzawy: I asked this same question of Saudi intellectuals in June and July 2005 when I was in the kingdom. They enunciated two basic reasons. One is that the Bush administration is not pressing the Saudi royal family enough, and the second is that the royal family went through a period of turbulence after 9-11. For perhaps two years, it was willing to do a bit more than its normal inclination. As the pressure abated, it shifted back to less moderation in the education and preaching spheres.

MEQ: Is King Abdullah a reformer?

Lippman: There is a tendency in the United States to think of King Abdullah as a reformer who, as crown prince, was chomping at the bit to implement liberalizing change in Saudi Arabia. I never believed that. He is some 80 years old. He’s been part of the tiny ruling elite of Saudi Arabia all his life. He is not bursting out of the gate to make major changes in the Saudi power structure.

Alyami: Abdullah is no reformer. Abdullah was marginalized throughout his life by his father the king, by the Sudairi full-brothers, and by prior kings, including the late King Fahd, with whom he shared the same mother. He became crown prince only because King Fahd felt badly for him. The royal family agreed to this because it assumed Abdullah would die before Fahd. God made a liar out of them, for Fahd died before Abdullah. The royal family did not want Abdullah as king but he threatened them with the National Guard.

There is no accountability in Saudi Arabia. There is no transparency. Anybody can pay to kill another person. There is the hawala [religious financial] system, which the Saudis use quite a bit, that leaves no paper trail. The judicial system is broken and needs urgently to be changed. The Saudi people are fed up. Power lies in the hands of Abdullah, Sultan, Naif, Majid, Khalid bin Faisal bin Abdul Aziz [governor of Asir province], perhaps Mohammed bin Fahd bin Abdul Aziz [governor of the Eastern Province], and a few others here and there.

King Abdullah has not implemented a single recommendation suggested by the national dialogues [high-profile conferences he organized to gather suggestions from a wide range of commoners]. He takes orders from those around him. He is one absolute monarch out of many absolutes. This is the reality of Saudi Arabia.

MEQ: What about the religious establishment?

Alyami: Amr Hamzawy is right that reform is in retreat. The House of Saud is the real establishment; the religious institution is only as powerful as the House of Saud allows it to be. The Saudi government plays the religious people against each other, and it also plays the religious establishment against liberals. If the Saudi royal family wanted to muzzle the religious establishment, it could. It has used the mufti to issue fatwas [religious rulings] against [Libyan leader Mu’ammar] Qadhafi and against [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein.

The royal family can silence people but does not silence the clergy because the alternative is liberalization, which is not in its interest. It feels safer with all the problems and threats of the religious establishment than with democratization, for democratizing means sharing power and becoming accountable.

MEQ: And terrorism?

Alyami: The hatred the religious establishment preaches against Christians, Jews, Shi’ite Muslims, and all non-Wahhabi Muslims is huge. Without reform, there will be no end to the hate in Saudi mosques, and terrorism will continue.

MEQ: Washington has praised reform efforts in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. What is Riyadh’s attitude toward its neighbors’ reforms? How do Saudis see U.S. policy to promote democratic reform in the Middle East?

Hamzawy: The Saudi situation is far more complicated than its neighbors’. Saudi Arabia is a [Persian] Gulf superpower. Other [Persian] Gulf countries depend on Saudi Arabia.

Throughout recent years, the Saudi government minimized reforms through various strategies. As Simon Henderson said, it uses oil. It also uses the fear that democratization could lead to the kingdom’s takeover by jihadists. More recently, the Saudis have also exploited Western and primarily U.S. fears of the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein to urge Washington to consider other democracy promotion projects more carefully.

Accordingly, the U.S. government might consider reaching out directly to civil society institutions, to groups promoting democratic change, and to the Saudi people themselves.

Henderson: The Americans should encourage civil society and advocate democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. Washington should also be tougher with regards to human rights abuses. The kingdom’s record is appalling; innocent people are thrown in jail and tortured.

Saudi Foreign Policy

MEQ: Turning to foreign affairs: how helpful is Saudi influence to Washington on regional issues such as stabilizing Iraq, pressing Syria to end its interference in Lebanon, promoting Israeli-Arab peace, and responding to the Iranian nuclear challenge? Are these issues on which the U.S. and Saudi governments can work together?

Henderson: A schizophrenia exists in Saudi foreign policy. Anyone who listens to Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal would think U.S.-Saudi interests converge. But look at the history of Saudi foreign policy during the 1980s and 1990s: despite being a close ally of the United States, the kingdom exported its firebrands to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Islamists almost triumphed in Algeria not because the Saudi government was encouraging Islamist government directly but because Saudi interests promoted the Islamists. There is a strong Islamist element to Saudi foreign policy that often goes unrecognized.

MEQ: But for a long time during the Cold War, wasn’t the U.S.-Saudi alliance based on common interests against the Soviet Union and communism? The U.S. government worked with the Saudis in the 1950s and 1960s against Nasserism; there was bilateral cooperation in the 1980s in Afghanistan.

Henderson: U.S. and Saudi interests converged in Afghanistan. They did not in Bosnia.

MEQ: Those interests converged for three decades of the Cold War.

Henderson: They did not converge in Algeria, Bosnia, or Chechnya.

MEQ: All those are post-Cold War examples.

Henderson: Washington did not necessarily recognize post-Cold War that U.S.-Saudi interests had diverged. The Saudis may not have a long-term interest in a stable Iraq. They will not, of course, say this publicly.

MEQ: What about Saudi policy toward Syria and the Arab-Israeli peace process?

Henderson: Abdullah has a sense of kinship with the Assads. Saudi involvement in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations was more a way of placating Washington. The Saudis are politically correct enough not to speak publicly against Arab-Israeli peace; they go along with the peace process. They get brownie points in Washington for meeting Jewish groups, for pushing the Palestinians in certain directions, funding Palestinian peace diplomacy, and things like this.

Hamzawy: Simon over-Orientalizes Saudi Arabia. Sometimes he suggests it’s religion, other times kinship. I disagree. Yes, Wahhabi Islam is a defining factor for the Saudi royal family and the Saudi establishment. In the 1960s, a power struggle took place between Nasserism and Saudi traditionalism. This was not a power struggle over the soul of the Arab world; it was a struggle over who would be the region’s power center at a time of shifting regional and international alliances. The Saudis often used religion to counter other ideologies, always, however, based on clear political calculations. They used religion in Afghanistan, with the blessing of Washington, I might add. In the post-Cold War era, the Saudis used religion to promote what they perceive as being Saudi national interests. At the end of the day, what is structuring the reality of Saudi foreign policy is the preservation of the Saudi royal family’s power. It’s not religion, or kinship, or ideology. It’s simply preservation of power. That is the story of Saudi Middle East policy.

Lippman: Absolutely correct, and the historical record supports that assessment. Look at some of the most critical external decisions Saudi Arabia has made over the past forty or fifty years: self-preservation is the first rule of the House of Saud. Likewise, the civil war in Yemen back in the 1960s was about preservation, not religion. In OPEC [the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries], the Saudis cooperated with the most radical Arab regimes with which they had nothing in common politically or spiritually. The same rationale impelled them to make the mistake of allowing 500,000 Americans to enter the country for Operation Desert Shield [in 1990]. Abdullah’s 2002 peace initiative on Israel was pragmatic and a sign of a generally non-ideological foreign policy.

MEQ: What does this mean about the issues and concerns to the United States in regional politics?

Hamzawy: Just as Tom Lippman said, I see pragmatism as key; preserving Saudi royal family power leads to convergence on regional issues. But I disagree with Simon Henderson concerning Iraq: the Saudi royal family has an interest in a stable Iraq but not necessarily a democratic Iraq. It is not against Iraqi democracy, but it will not invest much to help that flourish. It has a prescription to stabilize Iraq, which is to integrate, not exclude the Sunni Arabs. Do not divide the country. That is pragmatism. The Saudi royal family agrees with Cairo, with Damascus, more or less, and also somewhat with Washington.

MEQ: And the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Hamzawy: The Abdullah plan was a pragmatic effort to gain momentum and establish Saudi Arabia at the forefront of regional leaders. Abdullah intended to push Egypt and Jordan back a little and portray Saudi Arabia as an influential regional power. The Saudis would love to see the Palestinian issue solved because it is exploited by radicals and militants. A solution to it rids the Saudis, in terms of ideology and discourse, of a central factor to bin Ladenism. Saudi foreign policy is designed to preserve power and minimize threats. It has very little to do with religion and hardly anything to do with exporting Wahhabism.

Alyami: The House of Saud’s only agenda is to stay in power. It will do whatever it takes: kill, murder, incarcerate, destroy. The Saudis have no interest in stabilizing Iraq. I disagree with the idea that it is indifferent to a democratic Iraq. The Saudis hate two things: Shi’ite empowerment and a democracy on their border. They will do whatever it takes to ensure neither happens.

The Saudi government would like to see the United States stay in Iraq for sixty years. In part, it does not want Washington even to consider invading another Arab country, so getting the U.S. nose rubbed in the mud suits its purposes. Also, a U.S. occupation in Iraq can be just as useful a symbol if the U.S. military gets bogged down in the country.

In Syria, the Saudis have mixed interests. Because the ‘Alawites who control Syria are an offshoot of Shi’ism, they fear the Assad regime’s outreach to Iran and the Shi’ite government in Iraq. On the other hand, the Saudis fear the alternatives to the Assad dynasty, and fear that chaos in Syria may undercut Lebanon.

Abdullah’s Arab-Israeli peace plan was tactically wise. He knew that the Israelis could not accept it because it called for Israel to return all land occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. The Saudi royal family wants sway over East Jerusalem to add to [their patronage of] Mecca and Medina. Then they will be custodian of three holy places instead of two and will increase their stature accordingly. The Saudi government has no interest in seeing Palestinian-Israeli peace, especially if that results in a democratic Palestine. The Saudis are the greatest financial patrons of Hamas and of Al-Aqsa Brigades and other groups. If Israel and the Arabs make peace and democratization proceeds, the Saudi royal family will lose its power.

What really bothers me about all these discussions is that the Saudi people are never considered. We talk about the women in Saudi Arabia today as if we are talking about women’s situations 500, 600 years ago, and then people say there are openings for women, there are openings for religious minorities-but it’s still a country ruled by four or five old men who still do not recognize half of their society as human beings.

Henderson: I always regarded Abdullah’s peace plan as a Saudi public relations attempt to deflect attention from Saudi Arabia’s indirect role in 9-11.

The Oil Factor

MEQ: How important is oil to the bilateral U.S.-Saudi relationship?

Lippman: I’m a contrarian on this. Oil is not very relevant to bilateral relations. Even if there were a jihadist revolution tomorrow .

Alyami: I say, it’s all about Saudi oil.

Lippman: The record shows that the United States boycotts oil producers. They do not cut off America. Take, for instance, Libya and Iran .

MEQ: Saddam’s Iraq, too, right?

Lippman: Yes. But, that was because of United Nations’ sanctions. And the United States bought the oil anyway. I believe that oil has no country of origin. There is only one global oil market. If the United States stopped buying the three million barrels a day that it buys from Saudi Arabia, and instead purchased that amount somewhere else, then the Saudis would sell the same three million barrels to the Chinese, South Africans, Japanese, or the Argentineans. As long as Saudi Arabia is not in the forefront of rebels trying to drive the prices up (the way Mu’ammar Qadhafi or even that old U.S. friend, the shah of Iran, did in the old days), there should be no problem. Washington should take the Saudis at their word, just as Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman did on his recent trip there.

Alyami: From day one, oil has been the basis, directly or indirectly, of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Oil is important in Saudi relations with Japan and Europe, too, as both of them import a lot of Saudi oil. If their economies fall, the Saudi economy will follow. Therefore, oil becomes a key issue here. Tom is right that the U.S. does not import so much oil from the Saudis right now, but the situation will change in ten or fifteen years as China consumes more energy than the United States. The Chinese have few reserves, and they will try to buy as much as they can from the Gulf region. That said, the United States will never let the Chinese or anyone else get control of oil production in the Middle East.

Henderson: I disagree with Tom Lippman’s remarks. Oil is the basis of the relationship and is absolutely vital to it. So, preservation of the present Saudi regime is in Washington’s best interests because when other major oil exporters’ governments fail, the history is that their oil production and exports are drastically reduced. Iran and Iraq are cases in point.

MEQ: And Qadhafi?

Henderson: Yes, and Qadhafi, too. He didn’t actually fall, but Washington gave him a hard time.

MEQ: Yes, oil production in Libya has fallen for so long that the country now hopes that by 2010 it can return production to where it was when he came to power in 1969.

Henderson: Of course, Saudi Arabia, because of its huge reserves and huge production, has a crucial role, one that Riyadh has been happy to undertake for many years: to be the swing producer. Many in Washington consider it vital that Saudi Arabia continue to perform that role in the future. Such concerns limit Washington’s freedom of action on a whole series of concerns about Saudi Arabia.

MEQ: Thank you for these most interesting observations. In sum, while there remains disagreement on many, I heard a consensus that Washington should encourage the kingdom’s civil society organizations and democratic reformers. That would be quite a change, indeed, from U.S. policy in decades past.

[1] Daniel L. Glaser, deputy assistant secretary Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury, testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Nov. 8, 2005.[2] The World Muslim League is a Saudi-sponsored organization founded in 1962 to fund mosques, publishing houses, cultural centers, schools, and other Islamic institutions.

1. In continuation of its previous decisions, the Cabinet views thecontinued construction of the security fence ( http://tinyurl.com/czaco )as important vis-�-vis a measure that has proven its efficiency inprotecting the State of Israel and its citizens and that prevents negativeinfluences that terrorist attacks are liable to have on the diplomaticprocess while reducing, by as much as possible, the effects on Palestinians’lives in keeping with High Court of Justice rulings.

Therefore, the Cabinet decided:

* To approve the continued construction of the security fence in order toprevent terrorist attacks, in keeping with the route changes that werepresented today;

* The sections of fence that are built as a result of this decision, likethose sections of that have been built up to now, are a temporary securitymeasure for the prevention of terrorist attacks and do not express adiplomatic – or any other kind of – border;

* During the detailed planning, every effort will be made to reduce, by asmuch as possible, disturbances that are liable to be caused to Palestinians’lives as a result of the construction of the fence;

* Local changes in the route, or construction, of the fence that arerequired as a result of overall planning or security needs, or as a resultof the need to reduce disturbances to Palestinians’ lives, will be submittedfor approval to the Defense Minister and the Prime Minister;

* The approval of those sections of the fence route that are stillundergoing legal review (in northern Samaria and northeast of Maaleh Adumim)will be subject to legal approval.

2. The Cabinet discussed the issue of security responsibility for the‘Jerusalem envelope’ and for the seam zone.

3. Pursuant to its authority under the 1977 Airports Authority Law, theCabinet decided to approve the contacts between the Airports Authority andSwissport International Ltd; see http://tinyurl.com/ojah4 for details.

Today’s Israeli government decision to divide the communities within theAriel bloc is absurd, said community heads in the Shomron area. They saidthat the division of the area into two thin areas is proof that the idea ofpromoting ‘blocs of settlement’ is merely lip service and that it is reallya step in the direction of the retreat plan to ’67 borders and the desire tohide behind walls and fences, in a false sense of security that strengthensthe self-confidence of the palestinian arabs and their terrorist efforts.

For a visit to the areas at hand or interviews with the elected officialssuch as Mayor Bentzi Lieberman and Members of the Knesset, please contactRuthie Lieberman at jaffestrategies@gmail.com.

“will require … American-led diplomacy, starting from the premise thatIran’s leadership is neither monolithic nor impossibly intransigent”—————————————————————————-—————————————————————————-—————————————————————————-——–EXCERPTS:As the international community wrestles with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, alongstanding debate on the nuclear issue rages in Tehran, and Westernpolicymakers and analysts should not ignore it.Though Iranian officials publicly project a unified mindset, in reality thecountry’s ruling elites are divided into three broad categories: thosewhofavorpursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle at all costs; those who wish topursue it without sacrificing diplomatic interestss; and those who argue fora suspension of activities to build trust and allow for a full fuel cycledown the road. Understanding and exploiting these differences should be akey component of any diplomatic approach.The first group…romanticize the defiance of the revolution’s early days.… argue that Iran should withdraw from the nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty (NPT), unequivocally pursue its nuclear ambitions… .They advocatemeasures such as withholding oil exports and cutting diplomatic ties withcountries that side against Iran, confident that “the West needs Iran morethan we need them.”The second group,…argues that Iran is “bound by national duty” to pursueits “inalienable” right to enrich uranium, but … favors working within aninternational framework. … “a country’s survival depends on its politicaland diplomatic ties: you can’t live in isolation.”The third, more conciliatory group is arguably the most reflective ofpopular sentiment, but is also currently the least influential in thecircles of power. Believing the costs of nuclear intransigence to be greaterthan its benefits, they claim Iran should freeze its enrichment activitiesto build confidence and assuage international concerns. As reformist leaderMustafa Tajzadeh told me, “We have far more pressing concerns facing ourcountry than a lack of uranium enrichment.” This group has consistentlybacked direct talks with the United States, convinced that the Europeans areincapable of providing the political, economic and security dividends Iranseeks.Steering the Iranian nuclear ship is supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,whose 17-year track record suggests a leader who wants neither confrontationnor accommodation with the West. Yet decisions in Iran are made by consensusrather than decree, and at the moment Khamenei appears more influenced byconfrontationist voices around him who argue – with some plausibility – thatnothing short of regime change will satisfy the U.S., and that retreating onthe nuclear question would only display weakness and invite furtherpressure. Believing a clash with the U.S. inevitable, Tehran’s hard-linerswant it to occur on their terms, when oil prices are high and the U.S. isbogged down in Iraq.For the West to effectively counter Tehran’s confrontationists, it mustsimultaneously strengthen its pragmatists. While the West should make clearthat a bellicose Iranian policy will not reap rewards, it should alsoindicate that a more conciliatory stance would trigger reciprocal steps.Timing is key: offering incentives prematurely, without modified Iranianbehavior, may well validate the confrontationists’ hard-line approach;refusing to offer genuine incentives will undermine the pragmatists’ appeal.After months of silence, Iranian moderates are beginning to make theirvoices heard. Khatami has criticized his successor’s disregard fordiplomacy, as has former lead nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani. Thecountry’s largest reform party recently urged the government to voluntarilysuspend all nuclear fuel cycle work. This suggests pressure is having someeffect, but it will only go so far. If and when greater momentum and alarger consensus builds in Tehran for a nuclear compromise, it will be timefor the West to clarify that a moderate Iranian approach would beget amoderated Western response, particularly from the U.S.A broader diplomatic accommodation – Iran forsaking domestic uraniumenrichment and modifying its objectionable domestic and regional behavior inexchange for improved bilateral relations, security assurances, and agradual lifting of sanctions – is the preferred option. A smaller bargainwould be acknowledging Iran’s eventual right, after several years of a totalfreeze, to operate a small-scale uranium enrichment facility under anintrusive inspections regime, making clear that no move to weapons wouldever be tolerated. In both instances the logic is similar: to strengthen thehand of Iranians who are pressing for a more accommodating foreign andnuclear policy, they need to have a realistic and appealing alternative topoint to.With oil prices soaring and Iraq in chaos, the policies being contemplatedto enforce zero enrichment for zero incentives, which not even moderateforces in Iran can accept, hold little promise. Three decades of extensiveU.S. economic sanctions have done little to positively influence Iranianbehavior; there is little indication to believe additional European Unionsanctions would do the trick. Military strikes against Iran’s nuclearfacilities would be of dubious efficacy and would have catastrophicconsequences for regional peace and security. And despite widespread populardiscontent and promises of U.S. funding, hopes for a popular uprising arevery slim.A nuclear-armed Iran is not a fait accompli. But to prevent more dangerousscenarios from emerging will require the U.S. to come to terms with areality that European, Russian, and Iranian officials privately admit: if anuclear Iran is to be avoided, the answer lies not in European economicovertures or a Russian-led technical solution, but American-led diplomacy,starting from the premise that Iran’s leadership is neither monolithic norimpossibly intransigent.

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 30 April ’06:”EDITORIAL: Russia’s Oil Plans”QUOTES FROM TEXT: “Russia would look to channeling its … production to energy-hungryChina as well as to Japan” “Russia’s … renationalized … Gazprom … supplies a quarter ofEurope’s gas” “Today its strength rests most strongly on its ability to supplyenergy”—————————————————————————-—————————————————————————-———————————— EXCERPTS:

According to President Vladimir Putin, Russia is growing impatient withEuropean concerns about the reliability of the oil and gas which Europe buysfrom Moscow. If protests and worries continue, Putin warned last week,Russia would look to channeling its hydrocarbon production to energy-hungryChina as well as to Japan. A month ago, on a visit to Beijing, he speculatedopenly about running an oil pipeline from Siberia to China.… Western European countries are hardly likely to be reassured by a threatto divert energy production eastward.Further European alarm has been caused by the predatory ambitions of Russia’s state-owned energy companies, most particularly the renationalizedcommercial behemoth Gazprom, which currently supplies a quarter of Europe’sgas. Gazprom is looking to buy European energy companies and, with highenergy prices swelling its income, its pockets are deep. The negativereaction to this eventuality on the part of European politicians last weekcaused Putin to remark caustically: “When [European] companies come to us,it’s called investment and globalization, but when we go there, it’s calledexpansion by Russian companies.”I… Moscow is now enjoying the position of a commercial power in which itfinds itself thanks to its energy production. …Today its strength rests most strongly upon its ability to supply energy. Itis no longer a prime magnet for international investment. … How wiselyMoscow uses its newfound power and, indeed, how it uses the rising tide offoreign exchange flowing into its once almost bankrupt treasury are crucialboth for Russia itself and its neighbors …

Dear Fellow American or UnAmerican – I urge you to take a moment andwatch the following filmstrip at http://filmstripinternational.com. Besure to have flash enabled and your speakers turned on. You may alsowant to make sure your right wing hosebag boss is at lunch.

…The extreme Shiite minister of interior Bayan Jabr Soulagh who used to deny the sectarian crimes are being committing while the Iraqis know that he himself was and still commanding the sectarian attacks achieving the Iranian agenda in Iraq. Till now more that 244 Omers were assassinated in Baghdad. They were kidnapped or arrested by the police; then their tortured and shot dead bodies were found. The Iraqis are accusing the Iranians or those Iraqis who were trained in Iran an! d our proof is the Iranians used to torture the prisoners of war in the same way and most of them were killed in the front of the war in the same “technique” of killing. (…) Who could protect our sons, lives and homes? Nobody, the answer I will hear. Americans are allowing such crimes to hide their lies and fail in Iraq…

GI Special 4D29 – The Grunts In The Bush Rebelled – April 29, 2006Thomas F. Barton

…SIR! NO SIR! deals with the origins and growth of the GI anti-war movement and how it became a crucial aspect of that time that, along with much else, has been totally erased from the popular memory. In fact, the current slaughter in Iraq was made possible only because the current crop of American voters are so profoundly ignorant of their own recent history. It is a deliberately manufactured ignorance, of course, a house of c! ards built of established lies, but nevertheless it is the main prop holding up the current, blood-splattered junta and the main engine driving the ongoing insanity…

In a dispatch posted at 5:15pm Makkah time Saturday afternoon, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that Iraqi Resistance forces fired three 82mm mortar rounds into the US military headquarters located near the al-Hadithah Dam, about 300km northwest of Baghdad. The correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam reported eyewitnesses in the city as saying that plumes of smoke rose! over the American camp following the Resistance barrage…

You know. A false flag op is when a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack. This way it stirs its more or less peace-loving people into going to war with the demonized “enemy.” Its false flag ops 1.1. And Flagg is not a misspelling of flag but the name of a former FBI agent, Warren Flagg who (along with a former federal prosecutor) helped direct the New England investigation of ! the Sept. 11 attacks. Flagg was nice enough in a Newsday.com piece by Michael Dorman to mention that “one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections.” Gee, what luck! How wonderfully thoughtful of the hijackers to leave what Flagg termed this “Rosetta stone” behind so everything could be figured out so quickly and with such ease…

Two US soldiers killed and three other injured this morning when a person wearing a belt of explosive devices blew himself near US check point in Ramadi in Iraq (…) U.S. Army soldier died Saturday when a roadside bomb hit his convoy near Baghdad, the military said. The attack occurred southwest of the capital at about 4 p.m. Roadside bomb targeting Iraqi police patrol explodes in Ghazaliyah in west Baghdad, killing one policeman and wounding two. Three ! dead bodies discovered by Iraqi security forces in the east of the capital. Three Iraqi policemen wounded when explosive device blows up in Saadoun Street, central Baghdad. Two Iraqi army soldiers killed and six wounded when “insurgents” open fire on their convoy in Suwera…

Death Made In America Wondering if your conscience is still anesthetizedMohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD

…Due to the use of massive amount of uranium munitions used by the US forces in the initial bombing and subsequently, massive amount of congenital deformities occur all over Afghanistan. The rate of various cancers has gone up significantly. Leukemia and esophageal cancers are very high among children. According to doctors at maternity and children hospitals in Kabul, the rate of various congeni! tal deformities have increased by many folds since the US invasion. In fact, the magnitude of man made isotopes was established by the Uranium Medical Research Center after their investigators made to trips to Afghanistan and collected urine and soil samples. They established that the rate of man made isotopes was gone up 2000 times in some subjects located near the bombed areas. Since uranium used in the weapons have a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the US forces ensured that generations of Afghans suffer from cancers and deformities…

One Excellent Reason Not to Join the Military: You May be Ordered to Kill CiviliansPaul Rockwell, CommonDreams.org

When Marine Sergeant Jimmy Massey enlisted in the Marines, he never expected that he would be ordered to kill civilians. He enlisted in good faith, and he trusted his Commander-in-Chief to tell the truth, to follow the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law. He was even ready to risk his life for his country in the event that the United States faced a real or imminent attack. In January 2003, Jimmy ! was deployed to Iraq. During the initial invasion he was involved in a number of “checkpoint killings,” the kind of atrocities that occur over and over today without fanfare or scandal…

Baghdad’s Sunni population has begun fleeing the capital due to violent ethnic clashes in recent months. Nearly 25,000 Iraqi Sunnis have left their homes and migrated to Fallujahs Saklaviye district, where the Red Crescent has built a refugee camp for them…

U.S. and Iranian officials held talks on Iraq in Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region “a while ago”, Iraq’s Al-Sharqiya television quoted President Jalal Talabani as saying on Saturday. U.S., Iranian and Iraqi officials could not confirm the report. According to Sharqiya, Talabani told Iraqi and Arab writers during a spring cultural festival that the talks took place in the lakeside mountain resort of Dukan and that discussions were “dedicated to the Iraqi issue”..! .

…Saddam Husayn, still the legal President of Iraq, on Friday marked his 69th birthday like the state of Iraq itself, as a prisoner of the occupation. In a statement on the occasion, the Arab Socialist Baath Party noted that Iraq had become the most difficult conundrum ever faced by America during its colonialist history. In many respects the role of President! Saddam Husayn mirrors the role of Iraq. Like the country he is confined to a US prison, but he remains defiant and unbowed. In session after session of the American-staged “trial” the Iraqi President has stood firm against the illegal occupation and its mock “trial” as well as against the charges trumped up by a “court” whose sole “legal” authority is derived from the temporary presence of an alien army of occupation…

Humint Events Online The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist “Pearl Harbor” event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries. This weblog will explore the incredibly strange events of 9/11/01, and other issues of US government responsibility.

Everyone knows a hijacked jet slammed into the south tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, resulting in a spectacular fireball.

We ALL saw it on TV, right?

But what if the airplane never existed? What if the story of a hijacked airplane was a giant hoax, used as a linch-pin to sell the official 9/11 story?

What follows is a multi-point presentation of the complete South WTC tower attack– and a critique of this story.

I think that there is no doubt that the official story of this central event of 9/11 simply doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny.

O.S. = official story (in some cases the official story has not been fleshed out completely, and in these instances, I try to make the best case for the official story).

O.S. 1) Terrorists hijacked a 767 and a hijacker pilot on a suicide mission took over controls of the plane.

Critique: It is unclear how this was accomplished given the hijackers were only armed with knives, boxcutters, and possibly pepper spray and fake bombs. In particular, it is unclear how the hijackers got the pilots out of their seats without ground control being alerted of a hijacking. It seems unlikely the pilots would give up their seats without a struggle, and the pilots were large armed services veterans. It is not clear how the hijackers took the cockpit by surprise, given that at least two of the 9/11 hijackings had fights/struggles in the passenger compartment as the hijackers tried to move to the cockpit.

O.S. 2) The hijacker pilot navigated to New York City and approached the WTC complex from Southern manhattan at a speed between 500 and 600 mph. The plane was seen approaching Manhattan by several video cameras.

O.S. 3) The hijacker pilot needed to make a last second course alteration, and so banked the plane to the left for the last few hundred feet of approach. This event was captured by a few video cameras.

Critique: One video (“Park Foreman”) shows the plane making an extremely rapid and smooth roll to the left (though oddly the plane’s course does not obviously change). Given the extreme speed, this maneuver is not trivial, and it seems to occur too fast and smoothly for a huge jet being flown by a first-time pilot. Moreover, for a suicide pilot in the last incredible intense seconds of a massive and long-anticipated attack, it is hard to believe that the pilot wouldn’t OVER-compensate, and jerk the plane even farther to the left, as opposed to the seemingly controlled piloting that is observed in the videos. Remember again, officially the plane was flying at near maximum speed, making any maneuver very tricky. Interestingly though, this apparent last-second course-correction would tend to rule out remote control guidance of the plane, since guidance systems should have made the plane come in straight on target. The idea that someone was using a joystick from a remote location to control the plane would seem to have some technical problems. However, if the plane were a computer-generated image (CGI), this last-second maneuver would be no problem to add to the video, and would basically add extra drama to the imagery.

O.S. 4) The plane smashed into the south WTC tower full speed, and this event was captured by multiple video cameras. The plane hit the building almost perfectly straight on, such that both wings and wing-mounted engines impacted at about the same time.

O.S. 5) Because the plane was banked when it hit, the plane impacted 7 different floors (see Figure 1). The fuselage impacted two different floors and the 150 foot long wings struck several more floors. Specifically, the port wing struck across two floors while the starboard wing struck across four floors.Figure 1:

Critique: One HAS to wonder why the plane doesn’t really line up with the hole very well. How can the engines get in when there are columns blocking it? Moreover, the plane should have made a BIGGER hole in the wall than its profile, not a smaller hole, if it truly smashed through the wall without anything breaking off. Next, take a good look at that large chunk of wall laying right in the bottom of the center hole where the fuselage is supposed to have entered. The only possible explanation is that the plane pushed aside this large section of wall as it went in, much like a kitty-door folds up as the kitty walks through, and that after the plane “passed” through, the folded section of wall broke off and fell down to the bottom of the hole. However, this explanation strains credulity. A plane that smashes through the wall full-speed, if we even assume that is possible, is not going to fold up a broken-off section of wall and leave it right next to the entry hole. This large section of steel columns should be pushed farther inside, particularly considering that according to the videos, the tail of the plane passed into the building without breaking off, and the tail should have caught on this chunk of columns and carried it inwards.

O.S. 6) The plane went into the building, smashing though multiple thick steel columns of the outer wall, without slowing, showing signs of break-up, or any immediate explosion. The extreme mass and speed of the plane was no match for the outer columns, and they gave way to the plane.

Critique:Watch the flash video of the plane entering the building. Does this look real? Does a real plane behave this way? I have no problem with the fact of the fuselage entering, but the lack of immediate explosion, lack of crumpling and lack of deceleration defy belief. Remember, this impact was centered at the 80th floor of a 110 story building. The outer walls were supporting much of the weight of the 30 floors above, and these outer walls were constructed of 13/16 inch steel columns. Then there were also the multiple floor slabs that dissect that plane’s path. Floor slabs include heavy steel spandrels where the floor meets the outer wall, 3 inch concrete and steel support trusses. Moreover, the 160 foot plane impacted at least one extremely strong core column after penetrating only 30 feet into the building. If not the outer columns and floor slabs, this impact should have slowed the plane– but according to the videos, it didn’t! Of course, a digital plane can pass easily through steel and concrete without slowing.

O.S. 7) The wings of the plane, on video, were seen to smoothly pass into the building (see Figures 2 and 3), also here; post-impact photos of the entry hole showed several columns near the central hole were sliced through. Less clear is what happened to the thinner, outer sections of the wings; they did not seem to sever columns but still damaged them. The outer sections of wings must have disintegrated upon impacting these distant columns, with some sections of wings breaking through, and some sections shredding upon impact. Little to no fuel was kept in the outer sections of wings and so no significant fuel was spilled to spark an immediate explosion.Figure 2:Figure 3:

Critique: there is no good explanation for what happened to the wings; their behavior defies physics. The behaviour of the wings is discussed here and here. I think wings on a real plane would have broken off and exploded upon impacting the steel columns of the outer wall. Wings are semi-hollow segmented constructs of aluminum, they are not stronger than steel. Wings frequently break off in other plane crashes. In a slow speed impact, is there any doubt that a thick steel column would rip apart a wing? At high speed, this would only have happened QUICKER. Of course, digital wings can easily pass through steel columns. In reality, the wing-like damage to the outer columns must have been mimicked by precision pre-planted explosives.

O.S. 8) The fuselage of the plane, once inside, impacted a core column of the WTC tower (see Figure 4). This column was substantially larger than the outer wall columns. This column was only aout 30 feet in from the outer wall. There is no data on what happened to this column. We can hypothesize that this column, and the one to the north of it (in line with the plane’s path) were minimally damaged by the plane due to their massive strength. Since the plane did not slow upon impact, the plane must have shredded around this column and the one north of it, causing almost complete destruction of the fuselage. Momentum carried the rest of the plane, including the huge tail structure, full-speed into the building as the fuselage shredded against the columns.Figure 4:

Critique: the lower superstructure of the fuselage that supported much of the weight of the plane and held it together, was a continuous rigid structure . Impact of the fuselage superstructure on a massive core column should have slowed the plane significantly, since the force of the impact would have been transmitted through the plane’s framework. The core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminum plane. If we assume there was a plane, the only explanation is that the plane broke up after impacting the core column, since the plane officially disintegrated AFTER entering the building. But if this is the case, then why didn’t the plane slow? We can see in the video that the tail of the plane smoothly passed into the building following the same initial course of the plane. The idea that the huge 30 foot tail of the 767 passed into the building at full-speed and without deviation in its angle SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER the plane impacted a core column defies common sense. Overall, in the larger sense, we have a huge problem with what officially happened. The 160 foot long plane enters the 208 foot wide building, seemingly indestructible as it passes completely into the building. Yet somehow, in the last 48 feet, the plane disintegrates. This simply defies physics. On the other hand, a computer image of a plane, would certainly be able to pass into the building in the manner seen in the 9/11 videos.

O.S. 9) The starboard wing was torn off from the plane by the corner core column (Figure 4) and was also shredded by the various floor slabs it impacted.

Critique: Again we have the problem with the wing entering the building seemingly in an indestructible fashion, then getting sliced into pieces and spilling fuel.

O.S. 10) Much of the plane’s fuel was coincidentally carried in the starboard wing, such that when this wing was torn and shredded, the fuel spilled out with a large amount of momentum.

Critique: if the fuel tanks were as full as is always claimed in the official story, it seems highly unlikely that little to no fuel would be in the port wing.

O.S. 11) A few sections of the fuselage and starboard wing had enough momentum to break all the way through the building. The fuel exited the northeast corner of the building with this debris in a large mass about the size of the fuselage, but this mass quickly erupted into a massive fireball (Figure 5).Figure 5:

Critique: this large object that initially appears out the north face of the south tower is very odd. It is large enough to be the fuselage, yet a fuselage should not explode massively and essentially evaporate as this object does. The flash movies on this page show this odd phenomenon in good detail. If this object that bursts out of the corner is not the fuselage, what is it? And what causes the object to explode the way it does?

O.S. 12) In particular, a section of the starboard wing that traversed the 83rd floor had a large amount of fuel and scraped across the east wall of the tower, starting the east wall fireball (Figure 5, panel 2).

Critique: the explosive pimples that appear on the side of the building at floor 83 are odd. The only official explanation can be that they are generated by a shredded portion of the starboard wing. Even if we assume a shredded section of wing exploded against the wall, it is hard to believe so much fuel was carried in this thin outer section of wing. Further, the explosions occur outwards from the wall but also travel along the wall. It is hard to imagine how a section of wing can hit against the inside wall, start an explosion, but keep traveling, hit against the wall again, start another explosion, and hit against the wall AGAIN, and start another explosion. Watch the video. How can one section of wing do this?

O.S. 13) The port wing of the plane carried little fuel and was completely destroyed by the core columns and thus did not produce significant damage, explosion or fire on the west side of the building.

Critique: a true oddity is that where the rest of the plane impacted the core, there were few if any fires reported or seen in pictures and videos . Further, in contrast to the North tower hit, I could not find reports of fuel going down the elevator shafts in the South tower. How can this be? The bulk of the plane clearly impacted the core structure (Figure 4), and officially a great deal of fuel should have been in the port wing and fuselage.

O.S. 14) Damage to the core columns from the fuselage, plus fires started by the remaining plane fuel, significantly weakened the tower structural columns at the point of impact, causing the top 30 floors of the building to tip.

Critique: the top 30 floors clearly started to tip, as seen in several videos. (No, I don’t think these videos were faked; I think only the plane image was manipulated). If we assume a plane attack, there is no reason to think the core columns that supported much of the weight of the building were damaged. If core columns were damaged by a plane, the plane should have broken through the other side of the building, since not even core columns could stop it. If we assume significant numbers of core columns WERE damaged by a plane, the building should have started tipping immediately after the crash. But ultimately, the idea that jet fuel-induced hydrocarbon fires could weaken the massive thick steel core columns enough on just one side to cause the whole top of the building to topple, simply doesn’t hold up. The outer columns of the building were not even particularly damaged on the side where the top started to tip (to the east).

15) The tipping upper tower reached the point of no return, and the top 30 floors of the tower broke off and fell down, starting a global collapse of the complete tower.

16) The collapse of the towers released so much energy that the black boxes of the plane were destroyed (officially).

The idea that both black boxes were completely destroyed (as well as the black boxes from the North tower plane) is hard to believe, given the strength of the boxes and that human remains were found in the rubble. Unofficially, it was reported the black boxes WERE found but were kept secret for some unknown reason. My interpretation is that there were never any black boxes to find, because no plane ever struck the tower!

Okay, perhaps you’re onto something– but what about all those videos and photographs of the plane? There are indeed a lot of videos, perhaps even TOO many. I have found 29 different videos that capture the 2nd plane before it hit the WTC. These show the plane for varying lengths of time, for less than a second to almost ten seconds in one case. 29 videos of such an extremely transient event that could only be seen from very select angles seems like a lot to me. A careful scrutiny of the videos reveals a number of abnormalities, most strikingly the fact that different videos show different approach paths for the plane (as indicated above). The more one analyzes these videos, the more one should be struck with their obvious peculiarities in many different regards. I have discussed the large number of videos in more depth here. Overall, the background story is far too hazy on all these videos for us to have confidence in their veracity. The photos that exist of the putative second plane before it hit the tower are also similarly odd. Some of the photos are simply laughable fakes. Other photos show the plane coming in too low for where it impacted. Other photos have oddities, such as the famous Carmen Taylor photo of the plane right before it hit, which shows a plane with a clearly abnormal bulge under the starboard wing root. Many of the anomalies of the second plane images are covered in this fine article by Marcus Icke. The bottom line is that I believe all plane images in photos and videos were added in using computer graphics and computer animation.

An Alternative Theory So what did happen at the south WTC tower on 9/11? I think the story of a hijacked 767 hitting the tower is a carefully orchestrated media hoax. I do not know what happened to UA175. But the point is that the official story of this flight hitting the South tower makes little sense. My best guess is that teams of photographers and videographers in on the plot were in carefully pre-positioned places waiting for the second tower to explode. See this article for more on the generation of the plane images. I think that the power down of the top half of the South tower described by Scott Forbes was when the explosives and incendiaries were planted. Interestingly, if we assume there was no plane, and the South tower attack was all done with bombs, it gives a entirely different perspective from which to view the collapse of the South tower.

Summary: we have been lied to about this central event of 9/11. It is a perfect example of the “big lie” technique, where the lie is so enormous, no one can believe it actually is a lie. But viewed from a distance, it makes perfect sense that a televised hoax, using media outlets such as CNN, was the perfect vehicle for selling the whole story of Arab terrorists hijacking planes and attacking the US (not unlike a modernized version of Orson Well’s “Martian Invasion” radio hoax). Afterall, there had to be some reason why US Army psy-ops personnel were working at CNN. And it has long been known that the US media is heavily infiltrated by the CIA.

This letter is from our friend Mary,Please pass as she has ask ,all of us to do.bugsFrom: XMJMac@aol.com Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:06 PMSubject: The Main Reason Why Democrats Must Take Back Both Houses

To My Fellow Democrats,

As I have stated previously, we stand a good chance of winning back control of both the House and the Senate. But, we cannot let only politics guide us; we must use the morality that lies in each of us to be the power that energizes us to say to Bush “Enough is enough!”

Many of you do know that the Iraq War or as I call it the “Bush War” in Iraq is my main focus. We cannot tolerate the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis who did nothing to us to warrant our illegal action against their country. I say “their country” since they have the right to self determination. Yes, we can guide them, but we need a moral leader and not a liar that guides them towards any freedom.

We must be the moral force that stops Bush at all costs. Our country cannot tolerate him being in office after we do take control congress. We must and I cannot stress this strong enough impeach both Bush and Cheney.

Just the other day, I faxed some pretty raw pictures to Bush at the White House showing him some pretty graphic photos of limbless and burnt soldiers. Not that he actually gives a damn. It sickened me beyond belief that Bush did this to them. I have forwarded that faxed letter to Bush onto many including the media. Should you wish to take a look at these graphic photos, please go to this link Limbless and Burnt Soldiers Again; I want to warn you that these photos are very graphic. Please notice the smug smile given by Bush in many of these photos.

Tonight, someone sent me the following video feed WWJD? I have seen this feed before, but thought it necessary to pass on to all of you to remind you why Bush and Cheney must be removed from office when we do take power.

Did these innocent children deserve this? If anything, Bush and Cheney should be brought up on war crimes charges.

It has been reported where this war will cost us over $800 billion dollars. Just imagine what social programs could have been funded with that money. Every day we are spending $200 million dollars for this Bush War of lies.

To quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, he once stated: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

In closing as I go over the debate logs between Gore and Bush back in 2000, every thing that Gore said should a Bush administration take hold of this country has proven correct. Notice that I did not say governed. I feel we all should be wearing buttons that state, “Gore was right!”

Democratically Yours,

Mary!

PS: I am asking that all of you do pass this on since Bush and Cheney must be stopped

If there are any lawyers reading this who still have guts and will step up to the plate, if there is anyone reading this email who will call into a radio talk show, if there is anyone reading this email who will contact his/her elected representatives, if there is anyone reading this email who lives in NYC and will organize a demonstration in front of the courthouse, then possibly Susan Lindauer has a chance.

Otherwise, we will all probably get exactly what we deserve.

We will be sitting in front of our computer terminals, posting “to the choir,” when the covered trucks roll up in front of our own homes.

Janet Phelan

cherishedheart2005 <cherishedheart2005@yahoo.com> wrote: —Without organized resistance what is being prepared for this poor unfortunate soul will be the future of each and every individual who is a lover of truth and justice. These creeps in the White House need to receive justice for the abhorrent crimes that they perpetuate against the American people.

In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, janet phelan <jcphelan10@…> wrote:>> > http://cosmicpenguin.com/Lindauer/> > Susan Lindauer — Held Political Prisoner> to Cover Up U.S. Genocide in Iraq> > In March 2001 Susan Lindauer carried a message from the Iraqi> government to her cousin, the White House Chief of Staff, requesting the> return of weapons inspectors. This strongly indicated that Iraq had no WMD,> so the U.S. government was aware of this at that point in time, if not before.> But Bush and Cheney nevertheless attacked and invaded Iraq using WMD as a pretext, murdered as many as 500,000 people, and spread radioactive> poison over the entire country, which will murder millions> more. Now they are holding Lindauer in prison on false claims> of insanity, and are about to commit and forcibly drug her,> to prevent her from ever being able to tell her story.> > > > > ———————————> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.>

SPONSORED LINKS United state citizenship United state grant United state coin United state army United state government grant United state patent

——————————— YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group “911TruthAction” on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

US Financial largesse to Israel 1949-2004 as reported by the USEmbassy to Israel (there are billions more that are not listed hereincluding “spare” equipment transfers, tax deduction for assistance toIsrael etc but even this sanitized report is eye-opening)

Impatient Mossad warnsof ‘monster in the making’‘This is what we know and this is whatwe’ll do if you continue to do nothing’

——————————————————————————–Posted: April 30, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern

� 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

If the visit to Washington last week by the head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, was not enough to communicate Israel’s growing impatience with the international community’s failure to deal with Tehran’s unchecked development of nuclear technology and bellicose threats to wipe the Jewish state “off the map,” Ehud Olmert, prime minister designate, made it clear yesterday by denouncing Iran’s president as a “psychopath” and comparing him to Hitler.

Meir Dagan

Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in Washington last week in preparation for a visit to the U.S. by Olmert on May 23, held secret meetings with U.S. officials to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, reports the London Times. While details of the meetings were not revealed, it is believed Dagan met with his counterparts at the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Council.

“Dagan is not given to small talk and niceties,” said an Israeli intelligence source, who believes Dagan’s message to Washington policy makers was simple and blunt: “This is what we know and this is what we’ll do if you continue to do nothing.”

The revelation of the briefing comes in the wake of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) admission of alarming “gaps” in its knowledge of Iran’s centrifuge program to enrich uranium and the level of involvement of Iran’s military. Many intelligence experts believe Iran is operating a parallel nuclear program where military applications are secretly under development. Mossad reportedly claims to have evidence of enrichment sites in Iran hidden to IAEA inspectors “which can short-cut their timetable in the race for their first bomb.”

“When I read the recent reports regarding Iran, I saw a monster in the making,” said Dr. Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament’s foreign and defense committee.

Steinitz, who oversees Mossad’s activities in Iran, fears Iran’s first nuclear bomb is just one year away. “There is only one option that is worse than military action against Iran and that is to sit and do nothing,” he said.

Publically, at least, the Bush administration is still talking diplomacy and economic sanctions to achieve a “peaceful solution” following last week’s IAEA report documenting Iran’s non-compliance.

The U.S., Britain, France and Germany will face off this week against a resistant China and Russia over a resolution from the U.N. Security Council mandating Iran suspend its uranium enrichment. Given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scornful dismissal of resolutions from the U.N., something stronger, like sanctions could follow.

Russia and China, however, may scuttle any U.N. efforts to stop Iran. China just announced a $100 billion energy deal with Iran, with Beijing’s ambassador declaring, “No country can prevent the deal.” If the U.N. fails to act, the U.S. will seek Iran’s economic isolation at the July G8 summit in St. Petersburg.

But given the fast pace at which many intelligence experts believe Iran’s nuclear program is advancing, July is a long time off, especially for the Israelis who, as WorldNetDaily has reported, are already being targeted by Iran’s missiles and rockets stationed in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah surrogates.

“If we do not see any progress on the political or economic track that convinces the Iranians to back down, one of the parties will use the military option,” a senior Israeli source said in Washington last week. Dragging out the negotiations indefinitely is not an option.

“Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power,” Olmert said. “So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind � with an anti-Semite. God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons, to carry out his threats.”

Pittsburgh control tower was evacuated on 9/11 21 minutes before crash

Dear friends,

I received an email recently alerting me to a most intriguing articlewritten in Pittsburgh’s main newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, onSept. 23, 2001. The article (with pertinent sections copied below)states clearly that the Pittsburgh International Airport control tower wasordered to be evacuated at 9:49 on 9/11, 21 minutes before Unitedflight 93 crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside. What possibly could havebeen the reasoning for evacuating the control tower when an air crisiswas going on?!!! This is the control tower that could have told usdefinitively what happened to flight 93. Could this have been a way to keepthe air traffic controllers from seeing that flight 93 was pursued byUS military craft and shot down? There is considerable evidence tosupport this theory (see below).

…. It is clear from 911 tapes that local officials had less than 15minutes’ warning that the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 was inPittsburgh airspace before the plane crashed at 10:06 a.m. in SomersetCounty, killing all 44 people aboard.

Full learned about the errant plane at 9:53 a.m. That’s when he got acall alerting him that the control tower at Pittsburgh InternationalAirport had been evacuated. Thirteen minutes earlier, he had talked to anairport official who had no indication of any threat.

Between those two conversations, the Pittsburgh tower had received acall from the Cleveland air traffic control tower, saying a plane washeading toward Pittsburgh and refusing to communicate with controllers.The FAA ordered the Pittsburgh control tower evacuated at 9:49 a.m. ….

9:58 A.M. A man calls 911 from a bathroom on Flight 93, crying, “We’rebeing hijacked, we’re being hijacked!” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/01], thenreports that “he heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke comingfrom the plane and we lost contact with him.” [ABC News, 9/11/01, AP,9/12/01] One minute after the call began, the line goes dead. [PittsburghChannel, 12/6/01] The mentions of smoke and explosions of the recordingof his call are now denied. [The book Among the Heroes, 8/02, p. 264]The person who took Felt’s call is not allowed to speak to the media.[Mirror, 9/13/02] If that’s true, why is this important fact only deniednow, when the FBI got a copy of the recording on 9/11, and let themedia report the smoke and explosion story for months?

(Between 10:00-10:06 A.M.) During this time, there apparently are nocalls from Flight 93. The only exception is Richard Makely, who waslistening to the Jeremy Glick open phone line after Glick went to attack thehijackers. A reporter summarizes Makely explaining that, “The silencelasted two minutes, then there was screaming. More silence, followed bymore screams. Finally, there was a mechanical sound, followed bynothing.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/17/01] Near the end of the cockpitvoice recording, loud wind sounds can be heard. [CNN, 4/19/02, The bookAmong the Heroes, 8/02, p. 270-271]

(Before 10:06 A.M.) CBS television reports at some point before thecrash that two F-16 fighters are tailing Flight 93. [Independent, 8/13/02]Shortly after 9/11, a flight controller in New Hampshire ignores a banon controllers speaking to the media, and it is reported he claims“that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93… the F-16 made 360-degreeturns to remain close to the commercial jet.” “He must’ve seen thewhole thing,” the employee said of the F-16 pilot’s view of Flight 93’scrash. [AP, 9/13/01, Nashua Telegraph, 9/13/01]

LetsRoll has discovered the name of the pilot as well as all otherpertinent information regarding this incident;“At precisely 0938 hours, an alarm was sounded at Langely Air ForceBase, and those whom were on call, drinking coffee, were scrambled.They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered tohead toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; Afterconfirmation orders were received, A one Major Jim Gibney fired twosidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight atprecisely 0958;He was awarded a medal from the Governor one year later for his heroicactions. The Happy Hooligans were previously stationed in North Dakota,and moved to Langley Air Force base some months before 911 occured on a“Temporary assignment.”Major Jim Gibney did as he was ordered and did nothing criminal. He wasmerely following orders, of which he had no choice. Please do notharrass this man or bother him for doing what his CO & ultimately GeorgeBush, ordered him to do. Major Jim Gibney has no reason to feel guiltynor regret following orders. The fault lies with his superiors, and aone, certain President George Bush who planned and engineered 911.Please do not heap any kind of abuse onto this man, a crack fighterpilot, one of the best in our nation, for doing what he was trained andordered to do. He is a good man, honest and full of Integrity as well asunlimited discipline. He is a patriot, and was lied to and deceived.He had no way to know that this plane wasn’t a ‘hostile.’ Nor could hehave. The fault lies with his superiors, and President George ‘Dubya’Bush.Flight 93 has now been forever solved by truth, and honest reporting andinvestigating, from letsroll911.org!Major Jim Gibney, please do not read this as anything but the truth thatthe world deserves to know as true history. You played a part, but itwas your superiors who deceived both you and everyone else regardingFlight 93. I didn’t relish printing your name, as your innocent of anyevil doing. yet it’s history, and truth, and the world deserves to know.And your safer now that this truth is out there, than if it was not.But the world would appreciatte an honest reply and statement from youon this issue, but only when your able and ready.The source of this information Mr. Gibney was very careful to point outyour high quality of charachter and lack of malice or malfeasance inthese issues. Your integrity is no way harmed by these revelations, asyou were ignorant of the total picture of what was happening that day,and following orders as you were trained to do in an emergency.I apologize for having to print your name, but felt it neccessary forboth the truth to come forward, and your own safety.Major Jim Gibney…”Lets Roll”Time to let the truth out and the perps hang. If this means a coup thenso be it. As long as the coup is meant to restore the constitution whichwas shredded like toilet paper on a bums ass by George W. Bush.“Lets Roll Major Jim!”Sincerely,Phil JayhanDiscuss this a the LetsRoll911.org Forums – Click HereBack to the Home Page | LetsRoll911.org ForumsCopyright ?MMIVDisclaimer – We are saddened by the losses of 9-11, and regardless ofwho is responsible, we would like to extend our deepest apologies andsympathies to the family members and friends of those killed or injured.This site or material within does not mean any harm to those familymembers. Sincerely, The Staff at LetsRoll911.org

· What You Won’t See in Flight 93, the Film – The President and theSecretary of Defense, the two top officials in the chain of commandresponsible for defense the country were out of commission. DickCheney, the vice president, who under the constitution has noauthority to issue orders, was running the country from the WhiteHouse bunker. The FAA and the military were nowhere.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, over 1,000churches have been burned in a 4-year period of time.

You have three Jewish students that are alleged tohave burned down nine churches, and the citizens ofAlabama are thirsty for justice. The only thing thatstands between the three arsonists, and a 45 year jailsentence, is a wave of public opinion. Nathan Moseley,DeBusk, and Cloyd will flee to Israel if they getbail.

You have three Jewish students that are alleged tohave burned down nine churches, and the citizens ofAlabama are thirsty for justice. The only thing thatstands between the three arsonists, and a 45 year jailsentence, is a wave of public opinion. Nathan Moseley,DeBusk, and Cloyd will flee to Israel if they getbail.

8:27 p.m. March 19, 2006

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Three college students accused in astring of rural Alabama church fires will not seekrelease on bond on the federal charges, theirattorneys said.

A federal magistrate judge said Thursday the three mencould be released on $50,000 bond, in cash orproperty, with strict conditions. But Matthew LeeCloyd, Benjamin Moseley, and Russell DeBusk Jr. alsoface state arson charges, and would remain jailedwhile a state judge considered setting bond.

Moseley’s attorney, Bill Clark, said his client had noplans to make the federal bond in recognition of theseriousness of the church fires and in an effort topromote healing.

“Ben Moseley is concerned for the members of thechurches involved, the people in those communities andthe injured firefighters,” Clark said Saturday in astatement. “It is hoped that this decision will helpus move forward with efforts to resolve all of thesematters in a way that will result in reconciliationand restoration.”

Attorneys for Cloyd and DeBusk confirmed their clientsalso would not seek to be released on bond. All threesuspects remained in federal custody at the ShelbyCounty Jail.

They were arrested March 8 on federal charges ofconspiracy and setting fire to Ashby Baptist Church inBrierfield, in Bibb County. A federal grand jury willhear the charges later this month.

The state arrest warrants charge Cloyd, 20, Moseley,19, and DeBusk, 19, with arson in Bibb County, wherefive fires occurred Feb. 3. A second set of fires, onFeb. 7, destroyed four churches in Pickens, Sumter andGreene counties.

He threw away Medical School at the University ofAlabama for Satanism and burned 9 or 10 churches.

He went to a summer camp-meeting for Satanism, andcame back with a new religion. The first thing he didwas to convert his best friend who was two yearsyounger than him. Then he recruited some of the otherstudents at the local college. He would ask them ifthey wanted to go out for the weekend and find somedemons.

He told his friends this was a new religion of peace.He said you could be a Christian and into Satanism atthe same time. What was his underlying motivation?Matthew Cloyd said, “Let’s go out this weekend anddefy the very morals of society instilled upon us byour parents, our relatives and of course JesusChrist.”

Some of the locals are screaming, “boys will be boys.Well, let’s see what this religion of peace led theseyoung men into. As of now, we have 9 churches burned,perhaps as many as 30 deer shot, at least 3 cowskilled, and the destruction of the dreams of manyfamilies.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, over 1,000churches have been burned in a 4-year period of time.

John Stone, the Sheriff of Jefferson county at the time, believed there were others involved, but he was constantly blocked by an FBI agent named Dwayne Fuselier. To make matters worse, Fuselier had two sons in the Trench Coat Mafia, and the FBI saw no conflict of interest.———————————————–

TRENCHCOAT MAFIA OF COLUMBINE MASSACRE WERE ALL JEWISH

Summary

Klebold and Harris hand picked their victims. There were three shooters, and probably four more accomplices, that helped plant bombs, and others students that knew what was happening. At a minimum, seven of the Trench Coat Mafia, were involved.

Columbine has never made any sense. On a close examination of eyewitnesses, and events, one can easily see that there were at least seven people involved, and maybe a third shooter.Basically, there were 100 bombs found that day, and Klebold and Harris didnt’ bring them in alone. And the fact that an eyewitness said he saw two cars, with seven kids, at the school early that morning confirms there were accessories to the massacre.John Stone, the Sheriff of Jefferson county at the time, believed there were others involved, but he was constantly blocked by an FBI agent named Dwayne Fuselier. To make matters worse, Fuselier had two sons in the Trench Coat Mafia, and the FBI saw no conflict of interest.MotiveThe standard motive for the massacre is gun control, and that leads back to Zionists. There was a rash of similar incidences from Australia to the United Kingdom. The latest revelation is that Fuselier is Jewish, and that fuels the fire that Columbine was a Zionist black op, to foster the emotional climate needed to push strict gun control measures forth.The number one site on Columbine”

Between 11:15 and 12:05, They Killed 13 Students and Wounded Another 25

The SWAT Team That Was Afraid To Go In

Klebold Was A Time Bomb

He sung this as he killed kids ….”We hate niggers, spicks … and let’s not forget you white P.O.S. [pieces of expletive] also. We hate you.”

Klebold’s Background

17-year-old Dylan Klebold’s mother, Susan Yassenoff, was synagogue-going and shul-trained. She attended Temple Israel. Her father, Leo Yassenoff, was a wealthy commercial real-estate developer in Columbus, Ohio, and a prominent figure in the Jewish community, and active at the Temple Israel.

Eric Harris

He shot gunned his fellow students at point-blank range.

Eric Harris’s Background

Eric Harris was from New York – he transferred two yrs before the massacre, to Colorado. He was under the influence of Luvox, an anti-depressant prescribed to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. His friend Seth Tenebaum, who was then a 17 year old senior at Mayo High School in Rochester, Minn. and Sapel Berg, an 18-year-old senior in Plattsburgh, each knew Harris, and his mother, when his family lived in New York.

Harris was dating a Jewish girl, Sarah Davis – she said “Eric was angry when his family moved from New York to Colorado” … Harris Jewish background.

Harris Ran A Pro-Jewish Website

“If you recall your history, the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘Kill mankind. No one should survive.'” Harris, who raved on the Internet about wanting to “rip the arms off” racists, and Neo Nazis, persecution of Jews ” Harris’s diary said his mother is Jewish”

Their Plan Included Using Bombs, Followed By An Escape To Israel

The boys had planted 100+ bombs all over the school – in the confusion they planned to escape, and go to Israel. The sophistication of the bombs led police to believe they may have received help from Zionist sources, like the JDL.

No Extradition

A journal found in Harris’s bedroom alluded to a plan to escape to Israel, because of the extradition policy of that nation. Because Israel considers Jews (Sheinbein) to be automatic citizens, they will not extradite its citizens for trial in their home nations.

Klebold, Harris, And Spielberg

Someone convinced them that once they were in Israel that Spielberg, or Quentin Tarantino, would make a movie.

Each of their cars contained, two 20-pound propane tanks, another 20 gallons of gas, pipe bombs, clocks and other combustible liquids.

Decoy bombs were tested in a field, and the police detained suspects, but later released them.

Siegel, Cohen and Smith

The Trench Coat Mafia Was Formed To Protect Jewish Kids

Joe Stair, one of the original members of the Trench Coat Mafia, said the “Trench Coat Mafia” was organized because a Gay Jewish kid was picked on by Jocks. Jonathan Greene, Zach Heckler, Kristen Thiebault, Cory Friesen, Nickie Markham, Sarah Marsh, Benjamin Sargeant and other members of the Trench Coat Mafia, were mostly Jewish.

Detailed PDF’s 1…2…3…4

One was a registered sex offender.

The group was rumored to be selling drugs in the high school.

List of search warrants issued, and images from that day.

Rachel

Targets Weren’t Random

In the library their targets were a black kid, and a group called ‘Christians for Young Life’. A few of the trench coat mafia had younger siblings in the library, but they were untouched.

One girl was shot because she was holding a bible. When kids put 13 crosses on the Columbine lawn, local Jewish groups had them removed.Chris Morris Other Jewish Kids Involved

Chris Morris, another suspect, was arrested. Morris alibi was, that he was at Cory Friesen’s house, playing video games, that were rented at Video City. Listen to this audio between Morris and the police.

Students believe there was a third shooter, despite the Cory alibi.

Nathan Dykeman, who received $16,000 for TV interviews, had problems on lie detector. Dykeman was Klebold’s best friend, and made this audio with him.

Nathan Dykeman

Other Suspects

Brooks Brown, another suspect, was spared and went on to write books on Columbine. When Harris saw Brown at school, he told him “Go home”.

Police accused Brown of being in on the massacre. Police statement. In an odd move, Randy Brown, advised by his sister, arranged for a private polygraph

Search warrants were issued on Cory Freisen activities.

Nathan Klein

Evidence Points To Others Involved

A witness said that about 10:40 a.m. Tuesday — 40 minutes before the gunfire erupted — he saw Klebold’s black BMW carrying four teenagers about a block from the school. The driver made a U-turn and drove off, followed closely by a second car, a tan sedan, carrying two more teenagers.

Sheriff John Stone “I’ve never thought it was just two [suspects] because of the amount of stuff that was brought in. But we don’t have enough to charge anyone.”

Patrick McDuffee gives namesJohn StoneThe questions remain:

How did so many bombs get in the school? Who were the other four, seen in the car, with Klebold. Was there a third shooter,as fifty students claim. Who were Klebold’s accomplices?

46 information on columbine high school shooting 45 columbine high school story

FBI Agent Assigned to the Investigation Had Sons Involved

FBI Agent Dwayne Fuselier had sons involved. His boy helped make a movie, using Klebold and Harris, about the coming massacre, and the other son, Brian, amazingly escaped the massacre.

They were members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

Click this ~ Fuselier’s son works with the Bronfman family, and the Jewish Film Institute. Fuselier stand is Klebold was a confused young Jewish boy, and Harris was a psychopath.

Dwayne Fuselier, Ph.D.

Scott Fuselier

Denver’s SWAT Team

The SWAT team finally moved in at around 2:30 PM, 2 hours after the shooters committed suicide. Despite having seen signs in the windows that said victims were bleeding to death 2 hours earlier, this was the fastest they went into action.

Police were afraid

Parent’s lawsuits contend that police may have shot innocent students. According to the sheriff’s report, twelve officers fired a total of 141 times at Columbine that day. Three Denver SWAT veterans fired 105 of those rounds.

These Three Bought The Guns, But There Were Other Suspects

Morris is suspected of helping Harris and Klebold to carry duffel bags filled with bombs into the school. A teenager was also seen with Harris and Klebold in the parking lot. Klebold’s black BMW was seen 40 minutes before the shooting began, driving near the school with four teenagers inside.

Police believe that, while there may have been others with prior knowledge of the shooting, Harris and Klebold were the only shooters.

Morris Bernstein

A local gun dealer that denies selling any weapons or ammo.

The Cohen Brothers

They wrote a song about Klebold and the massacre

Bowling For Columbine

In this episode, the Jewish community had another Leopold and Loeb on their hands, but they cleverly arrange for Michael Moore to seize the opportunity and build a case for gun control.17 columbine picture and the by 9Sheriff Refuses To Release Tapes

Klebold and Harris made videos, and kept diaries, describing their plans for the massacre, and the sheriff refuses to release them, because of a possible anti-Semitic connections. Both kids were very racist and anti-Christian.

Videos they made.

Summary

Klebold and Harris hand picked their victims. There were three shooters, and probably four more accomplices, that helped plant bombs, and others students that knew what was happening. At a minimum, seven of the Trench Coat Mafia, were involved.

we are talking about culturally transmitted practices, not about race — de

———————————

From: “Peter Myers” <myers@cyberone.com.au>

April 30, 2006

(1) Be careful about Porn(2) Letter to Eric Hufschmid (about Mossad)(3) Voltaire and Jews (he would never be interviewed on MSM)(4) Jewish Record Producer Behind Hispanic Anthem(5) Tariq Aziz asked to give evidence against George Galloway(6) End Time Values. The Demise of America

(1) Be careful about Porn – by Peter Myers, April 30, 2006

I use a number of email addresses, but principally myers@cyberone.com.au.

The others receive a little bit of spam or porn, but my main address is delugedby it.

This can hardly be accidental – it’s a punishment for my truth-seeking. Anattempt to hinder my work, by slowing me down. And possibly a trap.

Many of the porn emails – with lurid subject lines – contain links one can clickon to see the sex scene.

Never click on any of them. If you do, a record may be kept of your visiting thesite, and this could be used against you in future – eg to blackmail you, orbesmirch your reputation.

Apart from that, it would reveal your weakness to the sender, who would befurther encouraged.

The sender of many of these porn emails is a woman – or so it seems. Don’tbelieve it – that’s just a lure. Instead, see a Mossad operative – a man –behind the subterfuge.

Some people, deluged by spam and porn, change their email address. I refuse todo so, and have found ways to beat off the attack. It does not slow me down, ordefeat me in any way. Instead, I get an insight into my emenies’ mindset andgrovelling lowliness.

I have made it a practice never to change a single link on my website, eversince it went public. That is, anyone who bookmarked one of my pages some yearsago, will find the same link working today. The only exception is pages underdevelopment, which I might mention in these email discussions but which I hadnot listed in my official index athttp://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/download.html

Turning away from porn does not mean becoming puritanical. On the contrary,Pornography is miles away from Art of the erotic kind. The difference is thePornography treats the other merely as an object, a body, whereas Art depictsthe other primarily as a person, a soul.

As an example, I recall cases of seeing a woman who appeared beautiful, but uponopening her mouth and revealing her mind, any such beauty vanished.

Apart from that, some things are best left to the imagination.

Yesterday, at a garage sale, I heard of a case of some people in this area,caught growing hydroponic marijuana underground.

The hydroponic kind is the kind being blamed for “schizophrenia” among marijuanausers. That’s because, lacking soil, the roots absorb the many dangerouschemicals put into the nutrient mix. In contrast, marijuana the herb, the“weed”, has long been used in Hindu and Islamic societies, moderately, withoutreported adverse consequences.

Anyway, these underground growers were caught because their electricity bill hadblown out.

And that reminds me of the Promis computer software – used by all policeagencies – described by Ari Ben-Menashe. He mentions (but not in the extract atthis link) that the software keeps track of changes in electricity and wateruse: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/vanunu.html

(2) Letter to Eric Hufschmid – by Peter Myers, April 30, 2006

Eric,

The 2005 edition of Painful Deceptions is quite different from the 2003 edition:more professional but less personal.

It shows no footage of you, or photo of you, and does not use your voice.

It says that you produced it, but in some places talks of you in the thirdperson, as “Hufschmid did this” etc; yet I recall cases of the first-person too.

This is a puzzle to me. Perhaps you felt that you had to lower your profile …for security reasons.

You have now parted ways with some of your earlier associates. This isunderstandable to me – you have discovered Zionism – and Mossad – which you seemnot to have done in 2003.

I, on the other hand, was immediately onto Mossad. Within the first week after911, I noticed Jared Israel, of Emperors’ Clothes, deriding claims of Mossad

involvement, in a discussion forum at Pravda.

Conspiracy analysts are divided in many ways; this is not surprising, since weare all groping for the truth “through a glass darkly”.

But the biggest divide is between those who “write out” any Israeli/Mossadinvolvement, and those who “write it in”.

The former find themselves hitting the “glass wall” – the one they don’t know isthere until they hit it.

Those who “write out” the Israel tie want to blame Bush, Cheney, the ChristianRight etc. They would have a large number of people involved in a 911 conspiracyand cover-up – scam as you call it.

I on the other hand think the number of true conspirators small. That’s anecessity for safety reasons. There would be a lot of other people who would beused by them – dupes, some possibly done away with after their unwittingservice.

Mossad’s taste for using other agencies to do its dirty work was described by aformer Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky:

Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, says its motto is “By way of deception, thoushalt do war”.

Mossad, he says, provoked America’s air strike on Libya in 1986 by making itappear that terrorist orders were being transmitted from the Libyan governmentto its embassies around the world. But the messages originated in Israel andwere re-transmitted by a special communication device – a “Trojan horse” –Mossad had placed inside Libya.

Mossad next moved against Saddam, drawing the United States to make war againsthim.

One can see Mossad’s mindset. It likes such solutions because they are elegant.

Even so, there is more to US history than Mossad. Those who talk of a “British”or “Illuminati” or “Luciferian” conspiracy (Larouche, Webster Tarpley, HenryMakow, Barry Chamish, et. al.) are partly right too, in the sense that there atleast three major conspiracies or factions:

E. J. Dillon wrote in his book on the Peace Conference of Versailles that it wasdominated by the Anglo-Saxon powers, and that they in turn were dominated bytheir Jewish members:

‘Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, theJews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influentialexponents. … a considerable number of Delegates believed that the realinfluences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic’ (The Peace Conference,Hutchinson & Co.,London, 1919, p. 422).

Then, after the next World War, there was another plan for World Government –the Baruch Plan, authored by David Lilienthal and Bernard Baruch (both Jewish),and put to Stalin in 1946 by the American Government:http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/baruch-plan.html

I’ve just been discovering Voltaire. What an incredible philosopher. Sooocontemporary. I’d love to reader more of what he says about Jews but have noaccess here. Do you have something in your library or can you add something?Many thanks if either is the case.

— Voltaire, (1694-1778), one of the greatest French eighteenth century writers,from Essai sur le Moeurs

Ironically, notes Jacob Katz, “Voltaire did more than any other single man toshape the rationalist trend that moved European society toward improving thestatus of the Jew.” [KATZ, From, p. 34] Still historically remembered (accordingto the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994) “as a crusader against tyranny andbigotry,” Voltaire turned repeatedly and angrily against Jews who he believed toepitomize such “tyranny and bigotry.” Jews, he complained, “are … the greatestscoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe … They are, all ofthem, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons andGermans are born with blond hair. I would not in the least be surprised if thesepeople would not some day become deadly to the human race … You [Jews] havesurpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct, and in barbarism.You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” [GOULD, p. 91] On anotheroccasion Voltaire charged that “the Jew does not belong to any place except thatplace which he makes money; would he not just as easily betray the King onbehalf of the Emperor as he would the Emperor for the King?” [KATZ, J, Fro, p.44]

Thirty of 118 of Voltaire’s essays in his Dictionary of Philosophy address Jews,usually disparagingly. Voltaire calls Jews “our masters and our enemies … whomwe detest … the most abominable people in the world.” [PRAGER, p. 128

****** and this tantalizing bit from Nietzsche:

“Jews chose voluntarily and with a profound talent for self-preservation theside of all those instincts that makes for decadence, not as if mastered bythem, but as if detecting in them a power by which the world could be defied.The Jews are the very opposite of decadents … they have put themselves at thehead of all decadent movements.” — Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900) [AGUS, p.295]

AND this from Fichte:

“I see no other means of protecting ourselves against them,” wrote Fichte,“[other] than by conquering their Promised Land and sending them all there”(Lewis, 111-112). Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin declared that Jews were “oneexploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closelyand intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but alsoacross all divergences of political opinion … [Jews have] that mercantilepassion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their nationalcharacter” (Lewis, 113).

and among Soviet emigres:

in interviews (at a Harvard archive) with 329 refugees from the Soviet Union inthe early 1950s: “A detailed examination of the background information of thosewho registered hostile attitudes to Jews reveals that they were of various age,national, educational, and status groups, and that they left the USSR atdifferent periods” (Korey, 11). The top six “anti-Semitic” assertions by thisdiverse group of people included assertions that

(1) Jews occupy a privileged and favored position in Soviet society. 2) Jews arebusiness- and money-minded. 3) Jews are clannish and help each other. 4) Jewsare aggressive and ‘pushy.’ 5) Jews are sly, calculating, and manipulative, andknow how to ‘use a situation.’ 6) Jews are deceitful, dishonest, unprincipled,insolent, and impudent (Korey, 5).

[critics of Jews] represented a bewildering range of opinion and personalitytypes” (Lindemann, 13). And why is this “uncomfortable [for Jews] to recognize?”Because, by even a child’s exercise of logic and common sense, the commondenominator of all such disparate people can only be the enduring truths aboutJews as each observer experienced them in varying historical and culturalcircumstances.

Lewis, Bernard. Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict andPrejudice. Norton, New York, 1986. Lindemann, Albert. Esau’s Tears: ModernAntisemitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Korey,William. The Soviet Cage: Anti-Semitism in Russia. Village Press, New York, 1973

A BRITISH record producer who started his career as a tea-boy in a London studiohas emerged as the man behind a Spanish-language version of The Star-SpangledBanner, America’s national anthem, that has upset President George W Bush. AdamKidron, 46, released Nuestro Himno – Our Anthem – on Friday as a gesture ofsupport for Hispanic immigrants. He has outraged rightwingers who complain thatthe Spanish version’s new lyrics are confrontational, and that immigrants do notmake enough effort to learn English. America’s 40m Latinos have declaredtomorrow a day of protest to back demands for improved citizenship rights for11m Hispanic illegal immigrants. As the country braced itself for the shutdownof schools, restaurants and building sites, Bush declared at a White House pressconference: “I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English.” Otherright-wingers have complained that the new version is disrespectful to Americanpatriotism and divisively belligerent in tone. One of the Spanish lines – sungby a Latin star named Pitbull – translates as: “My people keep fighting/ It’stime to break the chains.”

Kidron was unrepentant yesterday. As chief executive of Urban Box Office, whichspecialises in Latin music, he works closely with immigrant musicians. His ideafor a revised national anthem came when a Republican congressman declared ontelevision that illegal immigrants ought to be kicked out. Kidron said he was“disgusted” by America’s lack of generosity towards workers whose cheap labouris regarded by many as crucial to the US economy. He looked around for a recordthat would be “a song of pride for Latinos” and hit on the idea of Latinmusicians reinterpreting The Star- Spangled Banner. “I suppose I had a faintidea that if you do something a bit different, someone always complains,” hesaid. “But it just seemed really cool to do something that was artful, emotionaland, to some extent, patriotic.” Instead, Kidron’s New York office was floodedwith hate mail complaining that he was demeaning the national anthem anddiscouraging immigrants from embracing American culture. As the US televisionnetworks scrambled to book him for interviews he said: “I’m afraid we may bestoking prejudice. We don’t seem to be much of a cultural bridge.”

Kidron built a successful career in London in the 1980s producing artists suchas Ian Dury and the Blockheads, Neneh Cherry and Aztec Camera. He arrived inAmerica in the 1990s and has developed Urban Box Office as a specialistentertainment company focused on Latin markets. Among the artists featured onNuestro Himno are Gloria Trevi, a Mexican pop diva, Ivy Queen, a Puerto Ricanstar, and Wyclef Jean, representing the Haitian immigrant community. Kidron saidhe was appalled by the argument that Hispanic immigrants should leave their pastbehind in order to become Americans. “Look at how many Americans parade theirIrish roots on St Patrick’s Day,” he said. “And go down to Little Italy in NewYork. When you hear people speaking Italian in those restaurants, you think, ohgood, it’s authentic, the food must be good. Yet it seems to be a qualificationfor Hispanic immigrants that they mustn’t carry the flag of the country theywere born in and they mustn’t sing in their own language because it proves theyare not assimilating.” He described Bush’s remarks as “ridiculous”.

BRITISH diplomats in Baghdad have asked Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s former deputy primeminister, to help an investigation into allegations that George Galloway wasgiven cash by Saddam Hussein under the Oil-for-Food programme.

The diplomats made the secret approach through Mr Aziz’s lawyer this week onbehalf of Parliament’s so-called “sleaze buster”. The lawyer, Badie Izzat Arief,claimed that they offered to try and secure Mr Aziz immunity from prosecution onany charges arising from the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Embassy officials want to meet Mr Aziz, 70, in the US-run detention centre wherehe is held with other top members of Saddam’s regime to put a series ofquestions from Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Sir Philip is investigating claims that the MP for Bethnal Green & Bow tookmoney under the UN Oil-for-Food programme – a charge that Mr Gallowaystrenuously denies and about which he has already successfully sued and wondamages from one national newspaper.

Mr Arief told The Times that his client has been interrogated 312 times by theCIA and UN investigators since his arrest in April 2003, but this was the firstBritish approach.”We were surprised to hear from the British, but let’s see whatthey want,” Mr Arief said.

“The main question I believe is whether money was paid by anyone in Iraq to MrGalloway’s charity, the Mariam Appeal.”

He said that US officials had asked his client more than 100 detailed questionsabout Western politicians alleged to have received money from Saddam, but noneabout Mr Galloway.

“The CIA haven’t asked about Mr Galloway. They are obsessed with Jacques Chirac.Mr Aziz told them: â*~I find it strange you want revenge on Chirac. He is therespected President of France, so I regard the question as insulting.’ “

Mr Aziz, who also served as Saddam’s Foreign Minister, spent a Christmas holidaywith Mr Galloway, in Baghdad, in 1999. Mr Galloway described him as “an eminentdiplomat and intellectual person”.

In the same interview Mr Arief said that Mr Aziz, who surrendered to US forcessoon after the 2003 invasion and has never been charged, is suffering fromdeteriorating health.

He revealed how Saddam’s former right-hand man now lives in a small cell in whatwas a Republican Guard barracks, now part of Camp Cropper, the huge US base nearBaghdad airport.

The urbane, English-speaking envoy with a passion for handstitched suits nowshuffles about in a tatty tracksuit and flip-flops in his 6ft by 5ft cell, withjust a narrow bed, a hardback chair and a small cupboard for furniture.

“He is a shrunken figure,” Mr Arief said. “He can’t walk unaided, doesn’t eatproperly and isn’t taking care of himself. The Americans are keeping him in thehope of browbeating him into testifying against Saddam. As a matter ofconscience, he won’t,” Mr Arief said.

George Galloway said last night that it was “very significant” that Britain hadapproached Mr Aziz to seek information about him before next week’s localelections, in which his Respect Party is expected to take seats from Labour. MrGalloway said: “I could question the propriety of visiting a political prisonerwho has had heart attacks and strokes and who is being systematically deniedfamily visits, medical visits and legal visits.”

He added: “But I have every confidence that Mr Aziz will have told them thatthere is no truth whatsoever in these persistent allegations.”

Russian Christians now admit that the concept of human rights and liberties asadvocated by America and the West has no application in contemporary Russia.That country is drowning in vices directly linked to the West’s concept ofinherent rights and liberties: abortion; homosexuality; dissolution oftraditional marriage; pornography; slavery, prostitution, and exploitation ofthe oppressed, etc. The Russian Orthodox now understand that such American“values” are, in fact, vices which harm every human society as a collective.Such American “rights” have not brought happiness. They represent the devianceof the cult of the individual. From my Third World perspective, I am amazed thatsome Americans continue to argue that America’s virtue is that it protects such“rights” (=vices).

I focus here on similarities between America and the Soviet Union, two rivalsystems which have collapsed. Both systems boasted some admirable ideals. Therewas a period of several decades in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury when America offered immigrants numerous opportunities, which manycitizens took advantage of. The Soviet record is more spotted. It took me sometime to understand the Soviets’ rabid anti-religiousness. Why did the Sovietswork so tirelessly to destroy traditional Russian culture, much of which is, infact, oriented towards biblical Christian socialism? It came, of course, fromthe desire of Jews, the major component of Soviet communism, to take revengeupon Christian Slavs. A natural reaction, one might apologize, of history’sformerly powerless against the powerful. But might Soviet communism have“worked” without the Jews? Probably not, because so much of Soviet communism wasbased upon radical, indiscriminate violence (against Christians and others),something from which no good ever comes: a lesson to any Muslim listening. (Endsnever justify means). The Soviet Union fell apart, such that Ole Soviet KingCole Putin, despite his many talents, has been unable to put it back togetheragain.

We are now witnessing the demise of America. For decades, America successfullymarketed its “values” throughout the world (accompanied often by hefty cashsubsidies for corrupt, subservient regimes). The aims of the American ideologywere no less ambitious than those of Soviet communism, and the Americans werevictorious over the Soviets, for a couple of years anyway.

But after the collapse of the Soyuz, the shallowness of American values becameevident throughout the world. It turns out now that American-style Brown’n’Rootdemocracy does not, in fact, suit Iraq, a land long plagued by Europeancolonialism and internal division. It is now clear that America never intendedto export its American-style democracy to totalitarian regimes in Israel, Egypt,or Saudi Arabia. American democracy is a sham, all double-talk, just like theSoviets’ spin on the fraternal brotherhood of nations.

Democracy for several generations now has not existed in America. The largecorporations continue to increase their power, irregardless of the red or bluefaçade of the regime. The moral pedigree of a Clinton is as nasty as that of aBush. As identified by a recent controversial study ignored by the Americanmedia, it is, indeed, a cabal of pro-Israeli groups which controls America’spurse-strings and foreign policy.

America is dying. I assure those Americans who still feel secure about a regularpay check, their job perks, vacations, company cars and cell phones, annualbonuses, benefits, government entitlements, U.S. dollar-based investments andaccounts, etc etc., that their lifestyle is crumbling. There is no longer anyright or logic in America’s prosperity. What gives Americans the right toconsume the bulk of the world’s energy resources? By what right does an Americandrive a hummer while much of the rest of the world walks, rides bicycles, andcommutes by public transportation? No longer can America’s traditional rights beexcused. Those rights are mostly derived from a narrow, archaic Anglo-Saxontradition: the “right” to carry (and use/abuse) firearms and the “right” toexploit land and natural resources for personal benefit. The American MiddleClass has outlived its period of historical relevance and soon will be replaced,by Hispanics, India’s Indians, and Chinese. Those groups have no qualms aboutbearing and rearing children.

It is the twenty-first century. America is rat-infested history. America willfall, overrun by fatwah-inspired Muslims; wild, dispossessed, self-identifiedApache or Aztec guerillas; looting, reparations-deluded African-Americans;indignant Eskimos; flaming cross-dressers and advocates of every sort ofpolitically correct nonsense. History doesn’t last forever, and anyway, Americahad a couple of good centuries before it turned to cr*p.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”

Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as well. But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from a nuclear Iran and to close its ears to Iran’s calls for its destruction?

In October 2005 the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he called Israel a “fake regime” that “cannot logically continue to live.” Since he apparently favors a second Holocaust, even as he denies that the first one occurred, Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons would jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40 years. In a 1999 paper prepared for the Air War College, U. S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels it the “Third Temple’s Holy of Holies” and he argued that with it Israel has been able to deter its enemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in the Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.” But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.

Another argument one hears is that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can’t Israel live with an Iranian one? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living with an Iranian bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that any nuclear exchange between the two countries may well extinguish the Jewish state.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what’s needed and what works. As soon as it is clear that further nonmilitary pressures upon Iran are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and command and control centers as well, because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers. the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the “war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century” postmodernists in academia and elsewhere.

Much of the criticism will be phony, however. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?”

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn’t say so in class, he answered: “We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.”

At the news conference at which he announced Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.” He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region.”

Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, have the courage to emulate his predecessor? Do the Israel Defense Forces have the pluck to do to Iran today what they did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? And are the Israeli political and military establishments willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if they conclude that conventional weapons won’t do the job?

If Olmert gives the order, and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of Persia will be gone and the Middle East will be a much less dangerous place. But let no one think that my Saudi students or Israel’s other foes will publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.

Earth Builders Publishing Company,Lagos,Nigeria, humblyand appealingly require your presence at the officiallaunching of Earthbuilders,an emerging daily in Nigeriagiven to the happiness of all superior mortals,thewell-being and unity of humanity.

Earthbuilders objectives include:

.To localize global events and globalize localhappenings;.To analyse events in strict terms of earthlings’survival and global justice;.To inspire the spirit of kindness in mortals for thegreatness of the human race;.To advance man’s foremost values and unify theseemingly divergent purposes and manifestations ofcreation;.To promote good in the world and offer oportunity ofpublicity to mortals and organisations dedicated toglobal good.

Intellectual contributions shall be from all andcirculation throughout the world.Please,be there tomotvate our fine vision with yourwords,money,prayers,ideational involvement and otherconvenient means of assistance that the human race mayregularly remain renewed in reformation-hope.

Also,you are invited as regular writers and columnistsif you passionately subscribe to the aboveobjectives.Full publication begins by 1st July,2006.

Lets impeach the president for lyingAnd leading our country into warAbusing all the power that we gave himAnd shipping all our money out the doorHe’s the man who hired all the criminalsThe White House shadows who hide behind closed doorsAnd bend the facts to fit with their new storiesOf why we have to send our men to warLet’s impeach the president for spyingOn citizens inside their own homesBreaking every law in the countryBy tapping our computers and telephonesWhat if Al Qaeda blew up the leveesWould New Orleans have been safer that waySheltered by our governments protectionOr was someone just not home that day?Lets impeach the presidentFor hijacking our religion and using it to get electedDividing our country into colorsAnd still leaving black people neglectedThank god hes racking down on steroidsSince he sold his old baseball teamTheres lot of people looking at big troubleBut of course the president is cleanThank God

Reasons to Impeach include: * Violating provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony; * Violating provisions of the Geneva Convention by authorizing torture; * Holding American citizens without due process; * Manipulating intelligence and lying to Congress in order to initiate an illegal war against Iraq, resulting in loss of life and diminished security; and * Leaking classified information and exposing a covert operative — Valerie Plame — as means of silencing his critics.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live witha nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”

Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as well.But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from a nuclearIran and to close its ears to Iran’s calls for its destruction?

In October 2005 the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the“Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 hecalled Israel a “fake regime” that “cannot logically continue to live.”Since he apparently favors a second Holocaust, even as he denies that thefirst one occurred, Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weaponswould jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister and firstminister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of theIsraeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40years. In a 1999 paper prepared for the Air War College, U. S. ArmyLieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels it the “Third Temple’s Holy ofHolies” and he argued that with it Israel has been able to deter itsenemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in theBasement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.” But thetruth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and thesanity to be deterred.

Another argument one hears is that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclearbomb, why can’t Israel live with an Iranian one? The answer is that noIsraeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living with an Iranianbomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that any nuclearexchange between the two countries may well extinguish the Jewish state.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they dopreemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what’s needed andwhat works. As soon as it is clear that further nonmilitary pressures uponIran are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike firstand strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear weaponry,but its delivery systems and command and control centers as well, because itis always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead andeulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, theanti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers. theUnited States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, theQuakers, and the “war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century”postmodernists in academia and elsewhere.

Much of the criticism will be phony, however. In 1981, when Israel destroyedSaddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south ofBaghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at TempleUniversity condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to myoffice and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that Iclose the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leaderof the group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that theIsraelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqiwould have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he conteststhe leadership of the Arab world?”

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn’t say so in class, heanswered: “We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (theArab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, wewould have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.”

At the news conference at which he announced Israel’s destruction of theIraqi reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all thecondemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel hasnothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before itis too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.”He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region.”

Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, have the courage toemulate his predecessor? Do the Israel Defense Forces have the pluck to doto Iran today what they did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? And are theIsraeli political and military establishments willing to use tacticalnuclear weapons if they conclude that conventional weapons won’t do the job?

If Olmert gives the order, and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs ofPersia will be gone and the Middle East will be a much less dangerous place.But let no one think that my Saudi students or Israel’s other foes willpublicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.

this glick fellow seems to have so convienently forgotten the CIAs own estimates for Iran acquiring the NOOKULAR weapons technology they are bout 5 to 10 years away(Valerie Plame anyone?) ……..brilliant piece by the fact of ommission…..

Iran has a far more dangerous weapon than any nookular device, the oil bourse!I heard it got delayed in opening but the fact is the Iranian government has started selling oil in euros instead of dollars……….. anyone have anything on that?

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.– Notebook, 1904

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”

Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, as well. But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes from a nuclear Iran and to close its ears to Iran’s calls for its destruction?

In October 2005 the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped off the face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he called Israel a “fake regime” that “cannot logically continue to live.” Since he apparently favors a second Holocaust, even as he denies that the first one occurred, Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons would jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister and first minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the last surviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state has possessed a nuclear arsenal for 40 years. In a 1999 paper prepared for the Air War College, U. S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labels it the “Third Temple’s Holy of Holies” and he argued that with it Israel has been able to deter its enemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb in the Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.” But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdom and the sanity to be deterred.

Another argument one hears is that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can’t Israel live with an Iranian one? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not living with an Iranian bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? that any nuclear exchange between the two countries may well extinguish the Jewish state.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what’s needed and what works. As soon as it is clear that further nonmilitary pressures upon Iran are useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and command and control centers as well, because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemned by the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, the anti-Americans, the appeasers. the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the “war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century” postmodernists in academia and elsewhere.

Much of the criticism will be phony, however. In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in my Middle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israel roundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me to tell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door. Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of the group, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that the Israelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqi would have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which he contests the leadership of the Arab world?”

When I asked him why he and his compatriots didn’t say so in class, he answered: “We were afraid to. At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American Oil Company) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have been ordered home to be imprisoned or killed.”

At the news conference at which he announced Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all the condemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israel has nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now, before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal.” He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclear weapons in the region.”

Does Israel’s present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, have the courage to emulate his predecessor? Do the Israel Defense Forces have the pluck to do to Iran today what they did to Iraq a quarter of a century ago? And are the Israeli political and military establishments willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if they conclude that conventional weapons won’t do the job?

If Olmert gives the order, and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of Persia will be gone and the Middle East will be a much less dangerous place. But let no one think that my Saudi students or Israel’s other foes will publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.

SPONSORED LINKS United state coin United state government grant United state flag United state military Trademark united state United state patent

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group “911TruthAction” on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When you scoop the rest of the press on an item like this, the story takes on a life of its own. I cannot possibly respond to all the emails I received on the subject (my apologies) and I have received threats, condemnations, congratulations, atta-boys as well as all sorts of questions about how this happened and whether or not something like this is appropriate or can ‘fly’. It is to the latter that I will devote some time in this Op-Ed.

First, this action by the Illinois legislature and now that of California and Vermont caught a lot of people off guard. How can a state legislature do this? It seems so out of line to most people. But to Thomas Jefferson and the framers, it was right in line with their way of thinking about the power of a state legislature. Most people forget the important role that state legislatures play in selecting the President and how much additional power was initially given to state legislatures. Before Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution was modified by the seventeenth amendment in 1913, the state legislatures themselves selected the US Senators for each state. The people of each state had no direct right to vote for their senators. The people still have no direct vote for President. Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” The Twelfth amendment then goes on to describe how those electors go about their business to elect a President and Vice President.

Now that we see that it is not all that unusual for a state legislature to impact the office of the President, what might happen if one of these state legislatures votes to submit recommendations for impeachment to the House of Representatives? My guess is that the Speaker of the House would go running to the House Parliamentarian for guidance. The House Parliamentarian is not a member of congress per se but is an individual appointed by the Speaker of the House to guide the house on all issues regarding House Rules and Parliamentary procedure. This is one of the many places where this gets interesting. The current House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, is fairly new, having been appointed only 11 months ago. The Previous House Parliamentarian, Charles Johnson, served over ten years and was widely regarded by members on both sides of the aisle as non partisan and an expert on the rules and procedures of the House. Mr. Sullivan is likely to be called on shortly to render one of the most important judgments on the rules of the House in the last 100 or so years. How will he make his decision? It is likely to be guided by a number of documents and precedents. Every two years, the new congress adopts a set of rules, this 109th congress being no different. The rules for this congress can be viewed at http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/109th.pdf . One will note that the Final Rule of this US House of Representatives, Rule Twenty Eight, General Provisions is as follows:RULE XXVIIIGENERAL PROVISIONS1. The provisions of law that constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the previous Congress shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable, and the rules of parliamentary practice comprised by Jefferson�s Manual shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.Also of probable note to Mr. Sullivan will be “Parliamentary Reference Sources: House of Representatives” – by Thomas Carr, http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rl30787.pdf Updated March 16, 2004 which has as its Summary:House procedures are not based solely on the chamber�s rules. The foundations of House parliamentary procedure also include constitutional mandates, rules of parliamentary practice set forth in Jefferson�s Manual, published precedents, rulemaking statutes, committee rules, “memorandums of understanding” regarding committee jurisdiction, the rules of each party�s caucus or conference, and informal practices. Parliamentary reference sources provide information about how and when these foundations of House procedures govern different parliamentary situations.———————————-Where all of this will take Mr. Sullivan is anyone’s guess, but I see nothing yet in the House Rules which would prevent a legislature’s impeachment resolution from being accepted as a proposed bill in the House. Stay tuned for more articles from me on the Bush Impeachment situation as it progresses.

Take action — click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:Support the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Steven Leser is a freelance journalist specializing in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. His coverage of the Ohio Presidential Recount in 2004 was distinguished by interviews with Carlo Loparo, spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of State, along with Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties. Similar efforts on other topics to get first hand information from sources separate Mr. Leser from many of his contemporaries. Mr Leser was the journalist who broke the story of the Bush Impeachment Resolution being drafted in the Illinois Senate. The story was printed right here on OpEdNews.com

Senator Byrd then added: “If the House impeaches you, the Senatewill try you. The Senate, don’t forget it, serves as a court of impeachment andhas an equal say with the House on legislation.” Over at Democrats.com, where a transcript of Byrd’s remarks turnedup, the outburst was greeted enthusiastically.

Reacting to the West Virginia Democrat’s impeachment threat, one posterdeclared, “Man, I like the sound of that . . . you’ve got to likewhatever gumption some of these guys found while they were on theircongressional break.”

HAVANA, Cuba (AP) — Bolivia’s new left-leaning president signed a pact with Cuba and Venezuela on Saturday that rejects U.S.-backed free trade and promises a socialist version of regional commerce and cooperation.

With Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez seated nearby, President Evo Morales signed an updated version of the so-called Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, adding Bolivia as a third member.

“In Cuba and Venezuela we find unconditional solidarity,” Morales said. “They are the best allies for changing Bolivia.”

The document signed included the same language of the political declaration signed last year by Castro and Chavez. That pact contained much leftist rhetoric and few specifics, but was followed by closer economic ties and boosted trade between the two vehemently anti-U.S. governments.

After Bolivia was joined in the earlier agreement on Saturday, the three presidents signed a second document with more concrete proposals.

Cuba promised to send Bolivia doctors to provide medical care to poor people, and teachers to conduct literacy campaigns. Venezuela will send gasoline to the Andean nation and set up a $100 million (�80 million) fund for development programs and a $30 million (�24 million) fund for other social projects.

Cuba and Venezuela also agreed to buy all of Bolivia’s soybeans, recently left without markets after Colombia signed a free trade pact with the United States.

Dressed in his typical olive green uniform, Castro, who turns 80 in August, said sharing the spotlight with two younger, like-minded leaders “makes me the happiest man in the world.”

Afterward, the three presidents were greeted by tens of thousands of cheering people gathered in the broad Plaza of the Revolution to celebrate the signing.

The agreement is “a clever mixture of politics and economics, weighted toward the politics,” said Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank.

Venezuela-Cuba trade is expected to reach more than $3.5 billion (�2.9 billion) this year — about 40 percent higher than in 2005.

The deal signed between Chavez and Castro has Venezuela — the world’s fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the United States — selling 90,000 barrels a day of crude to the communist-run island at international market prices, but in exchange for agricultural products and other services instead of cash.

The addition of Bolivia will beef up the grouping’s economic potential with the Andean nation’s vast natural gas reserves.

Morales, a union leader who was swept to power on a leftist platform and has railed against American economic and drug policies, vowed during his campaign to be “the nightmare of the U.S. government.”

He, like Chavez, has tried to maintain a vibrant private sector while claiming an ever-larger state role in managing the economy. He has also toned down his rhetoric since taking office in January.

The Cuba-Venezuela deal — known by its Spanish acronym ALBA, also the word for dawn — provided a framework for the leaders to blast Washington’s efforts to expand its free trade with Latin American countries.

The U.S.-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas hemispheric trade pact stalled last year, but Washington since has signed nine free-trade agreements with Latin American countries.

The three presidents called the FTAA a U.S. effort to “annex” Latin America. Chavez and Morales have warned they could pull their countries from the Andean Community economic bloc if members Colombia, Peru and Ecuador go through with trade pacts with the United States.

Colombia and Peru have reached such agreements with Washington. Negotiations between the United States and Ecuador were suspended after nearly two weeks of street protests in March by indigenous groups in Ecuador opposed to such a pact.

“According to any reasonable definition of the term, this is not a trade agreement,” Michael Shifter, a political analyst with the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, said of last year’s ALBA deal. “It’s an attempt to pose a real counterweight to the U.S. role and agenda in Latin America.”

Shifter predicted few other Latin America nations would join ALBA, instead preferring trade agreements with the United States.

But he said Chavez is likely eyeing Peru as a potential ALBA member if nationalist Ollanta Humala prevails in a presidential runoff expected for May 28 or June 4. Humala was the front-runner in the April election.

Their leaders’ embrace of the socialist-tinged ALBA has rattled Bolivian and Venezuelan business leaders.

“The government should reach out more to the business sector and create a common agenda, figure out what markets interest us, where there are possibilities and separate the ideological and political from trade and economy,” said Gary Rodriguez, general manager of the Bolivian Foreign Trade Institute.

Cuba ranks 88 among countries that Bolivia exports to, shipping just $5,291 (�4,220) in goods to the Caribbean nation last year, according to the institute. Venezuela is Bolivia’s fifth most important export market, accounting for $167 million (�133.2 million) of its $2.7 billion (�2.15 billion) in exports.

“Recent reports suggest that the Bush administration is considering using nuclear weapons against Iran. The very fact that nuclear weapon use is being discussed as an option�against a state that does not have nuclear weapons and does not represent a direct or imminent threat to the United States�illustrates the extent to which the Bush administration has changed U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

“The Bush administration has explicitly rejected the basic precept that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons should be to deter the use of nuclear weapons. It has assigned a new, and provocative, mission to U.S. nuclear weapons: to dissuade or prevent other countries from undertaking military programs that could threaten U.S. interests in the future. A ‘preventive’ nuclear attack on Iran would fall into this category. It has also blurred the line between nuclear and conventional weapons by declaring that nuclear weapons can be used as part of military operations.

“This nuclear policy increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, and ultimately decreases U.S. as well as international security. Instead, the United States should commit itself to strengthen the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons that has developed over the past 60 years.

“Plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran also fail to recognize the immediate dangers inherent in the use of nuclear weapons. The administration is reportedly considering using the B61-11 nuclear ‘bunker buster’ against an underground facility near Natanz, Iran. The use of such a weapon would create massive clouds of radioactive fallout that could spread far from the site of the attack, including to other nations. Even if used in remote, lightly populated areas, the number of casualties could range up to more than a hundred thousand, depending on the weapon yield and weather conditions.

“Threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran provides the strongest of incentives for nuclear proliferation, since it would send the message that the only way for a country to deter nuclear attack is to acquire its own nuclear arsenal. The administration cannot have its cake and eat it, too�it cannot have a viable nuclear non-proliferation policy while continually expanding the roles for its own nuclear weapons.”

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at http://www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author’s copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research’s News and Discussion Forum

In its April 28 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency mentioned the UNSC mandate to Iran of last February:

� re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities,including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;

� reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;

� ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;

� pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the AdditionalProtocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;

� implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations.

Despite not being fully in compliance with these demands, Iran maintains that it is in fact fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

The IAEA found no smoking gun.

Here is its conclusion, which others will not quote for you at such length:

‘ 33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency�s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran�s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency�s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran�s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran�s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. ‘

This ambiguity is being twisted by the Bush administration to make it seem as though Iran has done something illegal. The report can be read to say that there is no evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal.

In fact, under the NPT, countries do have the right to do the sort of experiments Iran is doing. Most of the complaints are not about substance but about something else.

Iran’s president pledged to continue to cooperate with UN isnspectors.

More about Iran later. For now see the next item, where an Iraqi VP says all hell would break loose in Iraq if the US attacked Iran.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at http://www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author’s copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research’s News and Discussion Forum

Susan Lindauer — Held Political Prisonerto Cover Up U.S. Genocide in Iraq

In March 2001 Susan Lindauer carried a message from the Iraqigovernment to her cousin, the White House Chief of Staff, requesting thereturn of weapons inspectors. This strongly indicated that Iraq had no WMD,so the U.S. government was aware of this at that point in time, if not before.

But Bush and Cheney nevertheless attacked and invaded Iraq using WMD as a pretext,murdered as many as 500,000 people, and spread radioactive poison over the entire country,which will murder millions more. Now they are holding Lindauer in prison on false claimsof insanity, and are about to commit and forcibly drug her,to prevent her from ever being able to tell her story.

Guernsey is a small island located in the English Channel. An Anglo-Norman population. This island is located closer to the French coast than to the English one.At the close of the Napoleonic wars, the island, like several countries, was in pitiful condition, both pydically and financially.

No money

Sea walls, roads, markets were needed.There was no manpower shortage. but there was no money to pay for these works.The money used by the people on the island was the money from England, the pound sterling. But, like after any war, the financiers were calling back the money advanced to finance the slaughter, and the pounds sterling were very scarce everywhere.The island had an autonomous government, �the States of Guernsey.� So it had the rights inherent in all sovereign government, among other rights, that of regulating the volume of money incirculation in the country. But, no more ethan any other country, the States of Guernsey had thought of exercising this sovereign prerogative.

An intelligent governor

The island was especially in need of a new market house, and a committee was set up to take care of it. The committee went to see the governor to explain the situation to him:�We need a new market, but we have no money to build it.��With what material are you going to build a market?� asked the governor.�With stone and wood.��Do you have it in the island?��Certainly, and in plenty.��Do you have workers?��Yes again. But it is money that is lacking.��Could not your parliament issue money?� asked the governor.

A new idea!

This idea had never occurred to the committeemen, who had never analysed the money question. They knew where to get money when there was some: but they never wondered where money begins or can begin.The method of taxing when there was money was quite familiar. But the method of injecting the money that is lacking, and of taxing only after, was something new to our administrators.

Issues of national currency

An estimate of the cost was prepared and the States printed the money required, which was paid to those who either worked on the project or furnished materials for it. (Notice! The true definition of money is work…)As the new currency was paid out into circulation among the people, exchanges were being expedited. The wage-earners went to the shopkeepers, the shopkeepers went to the producers, the producers bought enough to increase their production.The currency was accepted everywhere. The government took measures against inflation by decreeing that money would be withdrawn by taxes, so it does not accumulate. And, in fact, the money was retired on schedule by taxes. But, as the increasing activity required a corresponding volume of money, other issues were brought out by the government for other works.On October 12, 1822, the new Market house was completed and opened. Not a penny of public debt on this public enterprise.

The bankers intervene

At the time of the original issue, there was no bank upon the island. This explain, without doubt, why there was no opposition to the issue of State money.But ten years after the first issue, the island had become so prosperous, thanks to the activity allowed by a sufficient volume of money, that the banks of England had an eye on this island.English bankers set up branches in the island and brought the population around to orthodox rules. �It was unsound,� they said, �to let the government finance its enterprises without getting into debt.� (!!!!!)The bankers did everything to stop further issues to introduce the system of interest-bearing loans to the government and to withdraw from the island the State money that had been paid out into circulation.There was some resistance, but the bankers won their point, with their usual methods, and on October 9, 1836, the States of Guernsey had abdicated their sovereign prerogative over the control of the volume of money. From then on, the amount of the national currency decreased gradually, and was replaced by money issued by private bankers in the form of loans getting the island into debt.Nevertheless, there is still about 40,000 pounds sterling ($200,000) of national currency outstanding at this date in the island. (According to Gertrude M. Coogan in Money Creators, published in 1935.)

Why a financial problem?

As we can see, with natural resources, workers, and a bit of common sense, there is no financial problem.But when shrewd exploiters want to regulate economic activities according to their power and their profit, there there financial problem arises.Of course, minds in search of arguments to justify the present regime will say that Guernsey was only an insignificant small island; that the control of the volume of money by the representatives of the people is good for a small country, but not for a big country.All right. Take note of what these gentlemen object to you today. Next week, these same gentlemen will tell you that the mone problem cannot be solved properly in a small territory or a province, but must be brought to a federal or even an international level!It was not Social Credit yet in Guernsey from 1820 to 1836. No doubt that the development of that time and that place would not have allowed to go as far as to give a dividend to consumers. But it was already a non-debt-bearing national currency, issued in accordance with the possibilities in front of the needs.The issues of national currency by the States of Guernsey caused neither inflation nor idleness. They created activity and prosperity. But these issues did not make any slaves, and that is why the bankers intervened.

This article was� published in the January-February, 2004 issue of �Michael�.�======================================================================== =================================================================

———-

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

By Dr. Thomas R. OlmstedApril 30, 2006

Scholars for 9/11 Truth website

I am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad. It troubled me a great deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened. Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that �crashed� on that day.

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, that airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identified nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were �passengers� on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell �victims� bodies from �hijacker� bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Saddam�s butt (weren�t these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me… produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Sadaam had done the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren�t a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did give American the opportunity to �revise� their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only �passenger� body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.

The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together. Stay tuned for part two to take a much closer look of the cast of characters on this ill-fated flight.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at http://www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author’s copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research’s News and Discussion Forum

The Turkish armed forces have launched their first military operation along the Iraqi border where Turkish troops have concentrated for days.

The Northern Iraqi cities of Amedi and Zaho, sheltering Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) militants, were hit with mortar attacks in �Operation Crescent.�

First reports say that locations where militants were lodged in the regions of Geliye, Pisaxa, Pirbela, Sheshdara, Sheranish and Elanish were demolished.

The “Burgundy Beret” units performed a recognizance mission in the area a while ago as part of the Special Forces Command.

Troop deployment to the region from different parts of the country continues.

Along with the transfer of commandos, heavy construction equipment is also being brought to the border for use during a possible cross-border operation.

The Iranian military extended their operation 10 kilometers to maintain security along the border.

A security cordon has been established to ensure the safety of troops that check not only Mt. Cudi, but other passages and routes for safety.

There is also top-level security present en route to the Border Gate Habur-2.

In another development, Kurdish militias (Peshmergas) under the leadership of Massoud Barzani tightened security measures along the Northern Iraqi border.

On Thursday, a statement from Barzani called attention to a plea for cessation of external intervention in Iraq’s domestic affairs. The need for agreement between officials from both Turkey and North Iraq was stressed.

Mehmet Gunes, a truck driver, said something interesting while on routine transit through the Border Gate Habur. “We are well accustomed to seeing such things. It�s the media that magnifies what we consider normal, I think.” Gunes also said that the truck drivers are not having any problem transiting border gates for the moment.

There is not any unusual military activity going on here against North Iraq, said Gunes, and some residents here are still unaware of the recent developments.

The Operation Crescent, a cross-border operation, is remarkable for one other thing: the exclusion of village guards from the operation.

United States has the largest nuclear arsenals so why is it wanting toattack Iran?What no other country can have it to protect itself?Only theUS can protect itself.Iran never threatened to attack any country withit if they do have them like the Russians did in the early 60s by movingtheir arsenals to Cuba.From: “Scott Peden” <scotpeden@cruzio.com> Reply-To:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com To: <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolutedeterrent” — so why not let Iran have nuclear energy? Date: Sun, 30 Apr2006 10:27:35 -0700And should the rest of the middle east live with Israel having the bomb?—–Original Message—– From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com[mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eastman Sent:Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:52 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject:[911TruthAction] Israel’s nuclear arsenal an “absolute deterrent” — sowhy not let Iran have nuclear energy?http://web. israelinsider .com/Views/8351.htmApril 27, 2006Should Israel Live with the Iranian Bomb? By Edward Bernard Glick ThomasFriedman of the New York Times has written that “I’d rather live with anuclear Iran” because it is “the wisest thing under the circumstances.”Friedman may feel this way and the United States may feel this way, aswell. But is it wise for Israel to feel this way, to avert its eyes froma nuclear Iran and to close its ears toIran’s calls for its destruction? In October 2005 the Iranian president,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said that the “Zionist regime” must “be wiped offthe face of the Earth.” In April 2006 he called Israel a “fake regime”that “cannot logically continue to live.” Since he apparently favors asecond Holocaust, even as he denies that the first one occurred, Iran’sdevelopment and deployment of nuclear weapons would jeopardize the veryexistence of Israel. Thanks to David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding primeminister and first minister of defense, and Shimon Peres, the lastsurviving member of the Israeli Old Guard, the Jewish state haspossessed a nuclear arsenal for 40 years. In a 1999 paper prepared forthe Air War College, U. S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr labelsit the “Third Temple’s Holy of Holies” and he argued that with it Israelhas been able to deter itsenemies. And Michael Karpin, the author of the 2006 book “The Bomb inthe Basement,” calls Israel’s nuclear arsenal the “absolute deterrent.”But the truth is that Israel can only deter Iran if Iran has the wisdomand the sanity to be deterred. Another argument one hears is that ifIran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can’t Israel live withan Iranian one? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens toeradicate Iran. Geography is the greatest reason for Israel’s not livingwith an Iranian bomb. Israel is so tiny ? smaller than New Jersey ? thatany nuclear exchange between the two countries may well extinguish theJewish state. Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis forwhatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well dowhat’s needed and what works. As soon as it is clear that furthernonmilitary pressures upon Iranare useless. Israel must, with or without American help, strike firstand strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran’s nuclearweaponry, but its delivery systems and command and control centers aswell, because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned,than dead and eulogized. An Israeli attack upon Iran will be condemnedby the Arabs, the Muslims, the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, theanti-Americans, the appeasers. the United States, the European Union,the United Nations, the Pope, the Quakers, and the“war-can-never-be-an-option-in-the-twenty-first-century” postmodernistsin academia and elsewhere. Much of the criticism will be phony, however.In 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s French-built Osirakreactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad, the Saudi students in myMiddle East politics class at Temple University condemned Israelroundly. But the next day, they all came to my office and asked me totell my secretary to leave. They then insisted that I close the door.Only when he was assured of complete privacy, did the leader of thegroup, whose English was impeccable, say to me: “Thank God that theIsraelis bombed Iraq yesterday. For only God knows when that crazy Iraqiwould have used a nuclear bomb against Saudi Arabia, with which hecontests the leadership of the Arab world?” When I asked him why he andhis compatriots didn’t say so in class, he answered: “We were afraid to.At the least, our fellowships from ARAMCO (the Arab-American OilCompany) would have been revoked. And at the most, we would have beenordered home to be imprisoned or killed.” At the news conference atwhich he announced Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi reactor, PrimeMinister Menachem Begin said that ”despite all thecondemnations which were heaped on Israel for the last 24 hours, Israelhas nothing to apologize for. In simple logic, we decided to act now,before it is too late. We shall defend our people with all the means atour disposal.” He added that “Israel will not tolerate any nuclearweapons in the region.” Does Israel’s present prime minister, EhudOlmert, have the courage to emulate his predecessor? Do the IsraelDefense Forces have the pluck to do to Iran today what they did to Iraqa quarter of a century ago? And are the Israeli political and militaryestablishments willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if they concludethat conventional weapons won’t do the job? If Olmert gives the order,and the IDF pulls it off, the mad mullahs of Persia will be gone and theMiddle East will be a much less dangerous place. But let no one thinkthat my Saudi students or Israel’s otherfoes will publicly thank the “Zionist regime” for this.SPONSORED LINKSUnited state armyUnited state militaryTrademark united stateUnited state coinUnited state citizenshipUnited state grantYAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group ” 911TruthAction ” on the web.To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service .Test your trivia skills! Play MSN World Tour today!

The Civil Harassment Restraining Orders against Tim White and against Attorney J. David Horspool come to hearing on May 2. The Denver Sheriffs were unable to serve White with the papers, so the TRO is not in effect, even though it was issued by Judge Tillman.

I now have Horspool stone cold on perjury.

The perjured item deals with his declaration in court against me in June of 2002. Among other perjured statements, he declared under penalty of perjury that I had made a report to the Osteopathic Board concerning a Dr. David Mitzner.

I thought that was probably a good idea, and filed the report SIX MONTHS LATER. The certified letter from the State Osteopathic Board is now filed with Santa Monica Court. This and other perjured declarations made by Horspool are being addressed in a complaint to the State Bar. The sum effect of his perjuries are deadly serious; because of his declarations, I was effectively restrained from saving the life of someone who almost died “on his watch.”

Horspool stated in his letter to Joe Ludi, which Tim White posted on the yahoo groups, that I had made death threats to him (Horspool). In his response to my filing for a RO against him, Horspool included emails from me, presumably as evidence. The emails are sometimes informative (“I will be interviewed on the radio tonite,” etc.) and sometimes beseeching him to obey the December 18, 2001 court order to distribute funds from my inheritance to me.

But not one single threat.

Incidentally, Horspool has requested of the Court to make me pay his court costs in this matter, thus further attempting to damage my already challenged economic base.

This is an extremely serious matter. Because of what happened in this “civil” court case, a wonderful, bright and vulnerable woman ended up dead. Horspool did the “legal” work.

WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ”execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush’s domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws — many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

”There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government,” Cooper said. ”This is really big, very expansive, and very significant.”

For the first five years of Bush’s presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush’s challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush’s position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ”been used for several administrations” and that ”the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.”

But the words ”in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution” are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ”signing statements” — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened,” said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Military link Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass — including the torture ban — involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ”to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ”black sites” where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ”lawfully collected,” including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program’s existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration’s lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ”security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions.” Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ”shall refrain” from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.

Oversight questioned Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.

On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ”whistle-blower” job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing.

When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada — a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.

When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.

Bush’s statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ”the whole idea that there is a rule of law,” because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

”Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional,” Golove said.

Defying Supreme Court Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.

Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say.

In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ”without the approval” of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute’s director would be ”subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet despite the court’s rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ”in a manner consistent with” the Constitution’s guarantee of ”equal protection” to all — which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.

Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court’s precedents, he threatens to ”overturn the existing structures of constitutional law.”

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ”disappear.”

Common practice in ’80s Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented.

Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.

But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.

When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute’s legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president’s influence over future court rulings.

Under Meese’s direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court.

In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president’s attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ”the last word on questions of interpretation.” He suggested that Reagan’s legal team should ”concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress.”

Reagan’s successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president — including the current one — has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.

Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

”What we haven’t seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House,” said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. ”That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration.”

Exaggerated fears? Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush’s signing statements are overblown. Bush’s signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.

Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.

Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ”withhold information” in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

”Nobody reads them,” said Goldsmith. ”They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations.”

But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush’s first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws.

Lower-level officials will follow the president’s instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said.

”Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn’t look like the legislation,” he said.

And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws — or merely preserving the right to do so.

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush’s domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush’s contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill’s principal sponsors in the Senate — John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina — all publicly rebuked the president.

”We believe the president understands Congress’s intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees,” McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ”The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation.”

Added Graham: ”I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified.”

And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush’s contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ”cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow.”

And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan — the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively — sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law.

”Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight,” they wrote. ”The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it.”

Lack of court review Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush’s claims, legal specialists said.

The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush’s assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters.

”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it,” said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked.”

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.

”The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they’re not taking action because they don’t want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans,” said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ”Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party.”

Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ”Bush has essentially said that ‘We’re the executive branch and we’re going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.’ “

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ”to exercise some self-restraint.” But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

”This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy,” Fein said. ”There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn’t doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power.”

If you see abuse and/or spam or anything else inappropriate, please contact yahoo abuse, or me at problems@billykess.com and one of us will look into it. NO SPAM, NO SLANDER, NO P0RN… common sense guidelines, please.

With special thanks to Proudliberal, macs_bac, Cricket, BUGS, EldridgeBeaver, fesman, Taximnjim, rtboot, and the many others who contribute and participate to make this a decent and active group. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________